natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It considers that the unit of analysis should be the individual contract in the market, on which Vtesse and BT compete.
Meni, da mora biti enota za analizo posamezna pogodba na trgu, na katerem si konkurirata Vtesse in BT.
Vtesse gives more precise figures on the impact of these differences in marginal taxation of contracts: taking the example of the bid launched by Kent MAN for the provision of backbone and access telecommunication links, Vtesse claims that its rates liability on that bid represented 16 % of its revenue.
Vtesse navaja natančnejše številke v zvezi z učinkom takšnih razlik pri mejni obdavčitvi pogodb: če vzamemo za primer razpis za oddajo ponudb družbe Kent MAN za zagotavljanje hrbteničnih in telekomunikacijskih povezav dostopa, Vtesse trdi, da je njegova davčna obveznost pri tej ponudbi pomenila 16 % njegovih prihodkov.
On the same bid, Vtesse claims that BT was not taxed marginally, or was taxed, at most, at the average of 2 % of revenues, which BT allegedly pays in rates.
Vtesse trdi, da pri istem razpisu BT ni bil obdavčen po zgornji meji, ali pa je bil obdavčen z največ povprečnima 2 % prihodkov, ki ju BT domnevno plača z davkom.
That difference would explain why Vtesse lost the bid to a consortium involving BT.
Navedena razlika naj bi pojasnila, zakaj Vtesse ni bil izbran na razpisu, na katerem je zmagal konzorcij, v katerega je vključen BT.
Vtesse also notes that BT has recently rented some 2000 route kilometres of optic fibres on the network of Geo, one of Vtesse's suppliers, probably on the same commercial terms as Vtesse.
Vtesse tudi navaja, da je BT na omrežju operaterja Geo, enega od dobaviteljev Vtesse, nedavno najel kakih 2000 km optičnih vlaken za usmerjanje, verjetno pod enakimi pogoji poslovanja kot Vtesse.
In Vtesse's view, BT should be considered in occupation of these fibres.
Po mnenju Vtesse je treba BT obravnavati kot uporabnika teh optičnih vlaken.
Vtesse questions whether this extension of BT's network was taken into account in its valuation, and suggests that BT should have been assessed on similar terms as Vtesse when it rents fibres from the same operator.
Vtesse dvomi, da se je takšna razširitev omrežja BT upoštevala pri njegovem vrednotenju, in meni, da bi se moral BT oceniti pod podobnimi pogoji kot Vtesse, kadar najame optična vlakna od istega operaterja.
The Altnet Task Force, which represents a number of alternative fixed-line telecommunication operators, submits that the R&E method should only be applied to regulated monopolies with little comparable rental evidence.
Altnet Task Force, ki zastopa več alternativnih telekomunikacijskih operaterjev fiksnih linij, meni, da se mora metoda prejemkov in izdatkov uporabljati samo za nadzorovane monopole z malo primerljivimi dokazili o najemnini.
It considers that the VOA had ample evidence of rental value to evaluate BT on a rental method, such as BT's wholesale line rental tariffs or its published prices for Local Loop Unbundling products which could be used to evaluate the rental value of its copper cables.
Po njegovem mnenju je imela VOA obsežna dokazila o najemni vrednosti, da bi BT lahko ocenila po metodi najemnine, na primer medoperaterske tarife BT za najem vodov ali objavljene cene storitev razvezave lokalne zanke (Local Loop Unbundling), ki se lahko uporabijo za oceno najemne vrednosti njegovih bakrenih kablov.
It also considers that the rental method has an incremental effect on the operators' tax liabilities.
Meni tudi, da metoda najemnine dodatno vpliva na davčne obveznosti operaterjev.
No such effect occurs under the R&E method, since the value of the infrastructure is established in advance and therefore BT's decision to light dark fibres is fiscally neutral.
Metoda prejemkov in izdatkov nima takšnih učinkov, saj se vrednost infrastrukture določi vnaprej, zato odločitev BT, da priključi temna vlakna, ni obdavčena.
According to Altnet, the effects of these distortions were made worse by the fact that the settlement reached by BT and the VOA was perpetuated for two valuation periods, which gave a substantial advantage to the incumbent, in terms of increased certainty, while Altnet firms are facing costly and outstanding appeals and negotiations.
Po navedbah Altneta je učinke takšnega izkrivljanja še poslabšalo dejstvo, da je poravnava, ki sta jo dosegla BT in VOA, obveljala za še dve obdobji vrednotenja, kar je z vidika večje gotovosti pomenilo precejšnjo ugodnost za operaterje s precejšnjim tržnim deležem, medtem ko se podjetja Altneta spopadajo z dragimi in obsežnimi pritožbami ter pogajanji.
Altnet claims that BT faces 74 % of the total tax burden, in relation to telecommunications networks, while its market share is at least 80 %.
Altnet trdi, da BT v zvezi s telekomunikacijskimi omrežji nosi 74 % skupne davčne obremenitve, medtem ko je njegov tržni delež vsaj 80-odstoten.
Global Crossing confirms that incremental taxation (i.e. on newly lit fibres) favours BT since, when Global Crossing illuminates a new fibre, the incremental taxation liability is incurred on the entire length of the circuit from its customer's site to its core network nodes.
Global Crossing potrjuje, da dodatna obdavčitev (tj. na novo priključena vlakna) daje neupravičeno prednost BT, ker obveznost dodatne obdavčitve za Global Crossing, ko ta priključi novo optično vlakno, velja na celotni dolžini voda od lokacije njegovega uporabnika do njegovih glavnih omrežnih vozlišč.
Global Crossing claims that it has lost business to BT because of the unfavourable taxation treatment.
Global Crossing trdi, da je zaradi neugodne davčne obravnave izgubil posel proti BT.
Thus plc and Viatel (UK) Ltd. also claim that they face incremental tax liability as a result of connecting new customers' sites to their networks, while BT, their main competitor, does not incur such an incremental tax liability.
Tudi Thus plc. in Viatel (UK) Ltd. trdita, da imata zaradi priključitve lokacij novih uporabnikov na svoji omrežji dodatno davčno obveznost, medtem ko za BT, njunega glavnega konkurenta, takšna dodatna davčna obveznost ne velja.
Above Net makes the same claim, indicating that it lost business to BT, possibly because of BT's alleged lower taxation
Above Net trdi enako in navaja, da je izgubil posel proti BT, verjetno zaradi domnevno nižje obdavčitve BT.
UKCTA, a trade association representing the interests of fixed-line communications operators competing against BT for voice and data services, expressed the view that the property taxation system is severely lacking in transparency, since it is characterised by confidential bilateral deals agreed between network operators and the tax authorities.
UKCTA, panožno združenje in zastopnik interesov komunikacijskih operaterjev fiksnih linij, ki BT konkurirajo pri glasovnih in podatkovnih storitvah, je izrazil mnenje, da je sistem obdavčitve premoženja veliko premalo pregleden, saj so zanj značilne zaupne dvostranske kupčije, o katerih se dogovorijo omrežni operaterji in davčni organi.
UKCTA considers that the settlement reached by BT has provided it with ten years of certainty and stability, while other operators did not benefit from a similar level of predictability.
UKCTA meni, da je poravnava, dosežena z BT, slednjemu zagotovila deset let gotovosti in stabilnosti, medtem ko drugi operaterji niso bili deležni podobne ravni predvidljivosti.
It notes that the property tax system has entrenched BT's dominant position, since taxation has been more affordable to BT and has therefore impaired new entrants' ability to compete fairly, and since BT, unlike other competitors, does not face direct increases in business rates liability for lighting more fibres.
Kot ugotavlja, je sistem obdavčitve premoženja še utrdil vodilni položaj BT, ker je bila obdavčitev sprejemljivejša za BT in je zato oslabila možnosti novih ponudnikov za pošteno konkuriranje, pa tudi ker se BT v nasprotju z drugimi konkurenti neposredno ne povečujejo obveznosti plačila poslovnega davka zaradi priključitve dodatnih vlaken.
However, following a request from the Commission, UKCTA indicated that it was impossible to indicate what Altnet operators might have had to pay in rates, had they been assessed on the same basis as BT.
Vendar je UKCTA na podlagi zahteve Komisije navedel, da ni mogoče ugotoviti, kateri operaterji Altneta bi morali plačati davek, če bi bili ocenjeni na enaki podlagi kot BT.
GVA Grimley, consultants in the field of business rates for telecommunications companies, criticise the application to BT of an adjustment mechanism which reflects change in its market shares and whose application is opaque.
GVA Grimley, svetovalci na področju poslovnega davka za telekomunikacijske družbe, izražajo nezadovoljstvo, ker se pri BT uporablja prilagoditveni mehanizem, ki odraža spremembo v njegovem tržnem deležu in katerega uporaba je nejasna.
GVA Grimley claims that for all other hereditaments valued under the R&E method, normal practice is for there to be a five yearly revaluation without a market share mechanism.
GVA Grimley trdi, da za vse druge nepremičnine, ovrednotene po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov, običajno velja petletno ponovno vrednotenje brez mehanizma tržnega deleža.
Furthermore, they question the way this market share adjustment mechanism is applied to BT, noting that it is difficult to see why BT's rateable value should have been declining from 1995 to 1999, in a context of improving turnover and profit.
Poleg tega dvomijo o načinu, s katerim se ta prilagoditveni mehanizem tržnega deleža uporablja za BT, in navajajo, da je težko razumeti, zakaj naj bi se obdavčljiva vrednost BT od leta 1995 do 1999 zniževala v okviru povečevanja prometa in dobička.
They further claimed that the VOA declared that a pair of unbundled copper wires had a rateable value of circa GBP 50, while BT's local loops are valued at around GBP 16 (dividing BT's total rateable value by the number of local loops).
Po njihovih trditvah je VOA tudi izjavila, da obdavčljiva vrednost nerazvezane bakrene parice znaša približno 50 GBP, medtem ko se krajevne zanke BT ocenjujejo na približno 16 GBP (skupna obdavčljiva vrednost BT deljena s številom krajevnih zank).
The discrepancy would indicate that BT's network is undervalued.
Razlika naj bi pomenila, da je omrežje BT ovrednoteno prenizko.
Some of the respondents already mentioned and others, such as Telewest Broadband, Cable and Wireless, or Easynet, raise other issues that concern business rates, but do not appear to be directly related to the facts described in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Nekatere od že navedenih strank v postopku in druge, na primer Telewest Broadband, Cable and Wireless ali Easynet, sprožajo druga vprašanja v zvezi s poslovnim davkom, vendar se ta ne zdijo neposredno povezana z dejstvi, opisanimi v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
For instance, some of those firms are concerned about the possible application of the property tax treatment in the context of local loop unbundling.
Nekatera izmed navedenih podjetij so na primer zaskrbljena zaradi morebitne uporabe obravnave davka na premoženje v okviru razvezave krajevne zanke.
They also complain about the fact that the business rates are set at too high a level, which represents an impediment to investment, and that a period of five years is incompatible with the structure and pace of technological change in the telecommunications industry.
Pritožujejo se tudi nad dejstvom, da je poslovni davek previsok, kar ovira naložbe, ter trdijo, da je petletno obdobje nezdružljivo s strukturo in hitrostjo tehnoloških sprememb v industriji telekomunikacij.
One firm also claims that some competitors are not rated.
Eno od podjetij tudi trdi, da nekateri konkurenti niso obdavčeni.
Comments from BT and Kingston
B Pripombe BT in Kingstona
Comments from BT
Pripombe BT
BT first explained that, contrary to what is claimed in the opening decision, there is no accepted hierarchy between the valuation methods, and no principle that the rental method, if rental evidence is available, is the most appropriate method.
BT je najprej pojasnil, da v nasprotju s trditvami iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka ni sprejete hierarhije med metodami vrednotenja in ni načela, po katerem bi bila v primeru razpoložljivih dokazil o najemnini metoda najemnine najustreznejša.
The method which the VOA uses is dictated by the nature of the property being assessed and by available evidence.
Metodo, ki jo uporabi VOA, narekujejo vrsta ocenjenega premoženja in razpoložljiva dokazila.
Thus, there is not discretion for the VOA as to the choice of method.
Zato VOA nima proste presoje pri izbiri metode.
Although BT is valued under a different method, there is no discriminatory treatment between BT and other ratepayers: the statutory test is the same, and all methods aim at assessing the hypothetical rent at which it is estimated that the business property in question might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year.
Čeprav je BT ovrednoten po drugi metodi, ne gre za diskriminatorno obravnavo med BT in drugimi davčnimi zavezanci: predpisani preskus je enak in cilj vseh metod je oceniti hipotetično najemnino, po kateri se po ocenah lahko upravičeno pričakuje, da se bo zadevna poslovna lastnina iz leta v leto oddajala v najem.
BT claims that there is no evidence that the rateable value assessed for BT's hereditament has given BT an advantage in the form of a reduced tax base compared to competitors.
Po trditvah BT ni dokazov, da je ocenjena obdavčljiva vrednost nepremičnin BT za BT v primerjavi s konkurenti pomenila ugodnost v obliki nižje davčne stopnje.
The only evidence the Commission has provided to support this allegation is a comparison of rateable values with respect to turnovers.
Edini dokaz, ki ga je Komisija predložila v podporo tej obtožbi, je primerjava obdavčljivih vrednosti glede na promet.
BT further submits that the VOA correctly concluded that the R&E method was the only appropriate method to value BT's network, mainly because of the lack of rental evidence to estimate the rateable value of BT's hereditament as a whole.
Poleg tega BT meni, da je VOA pravilno sklepala, da je metoda prejemkov in izdatkov edina ustrezna metoda za vrednotenje omrežja BT, v glavnem zaradi pomanjkanja dokazil o najemnini za oceno obdavčljive vrednosti nepremičnin BT kot celote.
Neither local loop nor wholesale rental evidence was available at the time of the 1995 and 2000 valuations.
V obdobju vrednotenj za leti 1995 in 2000 ni bilo na voljo niti dokazil o najemnini za krajevno zanko niti dokazil o najemnini na medoperaterski ravni.
BT denies that there was any bias in the appeal system or in its application to BT.
BT zanika kakršno koli pristranskost v pritožbenem sistemu ali njegovi uporabi pri BT.
Everybody has a right to appeal and a possibility to settle.
Vsakdo ima pravico do pritožbe in možnost poravnave.
The valuation of BT's network was the object of an appeal in 1995.
Vrednotenje omrežja BT je bilo leta 1995 predmet pritožbe.
Its settlement before the Valuation Court was not unusual, and does not imply discretion on the part of the VOA: the possibility of reaching a settlement does not relieve the VOA of its statutory duty to determine the annual rental value of the hereditament under the hypothetical tenancy.
Njena poravnava pred Valuation Court ni bila neobičajna in ne kaže na to, da ima VOA prosto presojo: možnost dosege poravnave agencije VOA ne odvezuje njene zakonske obveznosti določanja letne najemne vrednosti nepremičnin na podlagi hipotetičnega najema.
According to BT, it is also wrong to say that the 1995 valuation also served as a basis for determining the 2000 values and conferred ten years of certainty on BT: the settlement concerning the 1995 valuation only took place in 2000 because of delays in the legal proceedings.
Po navedbah BT tudi ni res, da se je vrednotenje iz leta 1995 uporabilo tudi kot podlaga za določitev vrednosti za leto 2000 in za BT pomenilo desetletno gotovost: poravnava, ki je zadevala vrednotenje za leto 1995, se je zgodila šele leta 2000 zaradi zamud pri pravnih postopkih.
Thus, BT was subject to five years of uncertainty as regards the 1995 valuation.
Zato je za BT veljala petletna negotovost v zvezi z vrednotenjem za leto 1995.
The 2000 list was settled at the same time.
Hkrati je bil usklajen seznam za leto 2000.
BT explained that in the course of the five-year period, revisions of the valuation can take place in cases of ‘material changes in circumstances’ (‘MCCs’).
BT je pojasnil, da se med petletnim obdobjem vrednotenje lahko popravi v primeru „bistvenih sprememb okoliščin“.
A market share adjustment mechanism was seen as an efficient means of reflecting, on an annual basis, the net effect of these MCCs.
Mehanizem prilagoditve tržnega deleža se je zdel učinkovito sredstvo, s katerim se je vsako leto odražal čisti učinek takšnih bistvenih sprememb okoliščin.
Therefore, BT explained that the Commission's decision to initiate the procedure was wrong to claim that any increase in the value of BT's infrastructure is not taken into account: in fact, BT has been subject to upward as well as downward revisions, depending on whether factors increasing BT's value outweighed decreasing factors.
Zato je BT razložil, da se je v odločitvi Komisije o sprožitvi postopka zmotno trdilo, da se ne upošteva morebitno povečanje vrednosti infrastrukture BT: dejansko so za BT veljali tako popravki navzgor kot popravki navzdol, odvisno od tega, ali so dejavniki povečanja vrednosti BT prevladali nad dejavniki zmanjšanja.
According to BT, the revision system applicable to Vtesse appears to be based on the same principles, albeit on a different manner: newly occupied fibres become an additional part of its hereditament and are valued as part of it.
Po navedbah BT se zdi, da sistem popravkov, ki se uporablja za Vtesse, temelji na enakih načelih, čeprav na drugačen način: novo zasedena vlakna postanejo dodatni del njegovih nepremičnin in se ovrednotijo kot njihov del.
In the case of Vtesse, market share is not a suitable means for assessing changes in rateable value since any changes are likely to be imperceptible due to Vtesse' small market shares.
V primeru Vtesse tržni delež ni primerno sredstvo za ocenjevanje sprememb obdavčljive vrednosti, ker bi bile vsakršne spremembe verjetno nezaznavne zaradi majhnih tržnih deležev Vtesse.
Finally, if the Commission were to decide that BT did receive State aid, BT submits that the Commission could not order recovery because of BT's legitimate expectation that any such aid was lawful, or, alternatively, that it would constitute existing aid.
In končno, če bi Komisija odločila, da je BT vendarle prejel državno pomoč, Komisija po mnenju BT ne more odrediti vračila, in sicer zaradi legitimnega pričakovanja BT, da je bila vsaka takšna pomoč zakonita oziroma bi pomenila veljavno pomoč.
Comments from Kingston
Pripombe Kingstona
Kingston claims that the Commission has not established the existence of an advantage, either by showing that BT and Kingston have benefited from a selective reduction in the burden of tax, or by showing that other operators face an exceptional increase.
Kingston trdi, da Komisija ni dokazala obstoja ugodnosti, saj ni pokazala, da sta bila BT in Kingston deležna selektivnega zmanjšanja davčne obremenitve, niti ni pokazala, da se drugi operaterji srečujejo z izjemnim povečanjem.
It notes that in the case of Kingston, the Commission has no idea how it has been rated.
Kot navaja, Komisija v primeru Kingstona nima pojma o tem, kako je bil obdavčen.
Kingston considers that the only evidence that an advantage may have been granted to BT is the difference in the rates/revenue ratio between BT and Vtesse.
Kingston meni, da je edini dokaz o tem, da bi bil BT lahko deležen ugodnosti, razlika v razmerju med davkom in prihodki med BT in Vtesse.
However, this ratio is irrelevant in the case of property tax, which is not a tax on revenues.
Vendar to razmerje pri davku na premoženje ni pomembno, saj ne gre za davek na prihodke.
For such ratio to be relevant, Vtesse and Kingtson or BT should be directly comparable firms, which is not the case given the differences in size, turnover and economic activities.
Da bi bilo takšno razmerje pomembno, bi morala biti Vtesse in Kingston neposredno primerljivi podjetji, kar v tem primeru ni res glede na razlike v velikosti, prometu in gospodarskih dejavnostih.
Finally, it estimates Vtesse's ratio at 0,39 %, while its own rates/revenue ratio is allegedly at 4,5 %.
In končno, razmerje Vtesse ocenjuje na 0,39 %, medtem ko naj bi njegovo razmerje med davkom in prihodki domnevno znašalo 4,5 %.
It denies that the existence of several methods bestows a selective advantage on Kingston.
Zanika, da bi obstoj več metod prinašal selektivno ugodnost za Kingston.
The VOA has, in its view, some discretion in the valuation process, but this is not unfettered discretion: the nature of the hereditament and the nature of the evidence determine its choice, which is further constrained by a considerable body of case-law.
Po njegovem mnenju je VOA v postopku vrednotenja imela določeno možnost proste presoje, vendar ne gre za neomejeno možnost proste presoje: njeno izbiro narekujeta vrsta nepremičnine in vrsta dokazil, še dodatno pa jo omejuje obsežna zbirka sodne prakse.
It is not possible to demonstrate that the R&E method favours Kingston or BT, since the rental method is not applicable to them, while the R&E method is not applicable to Vtesse, since it is not profitable.
Ni mogoče dokazati, da je metoda prejemkov in izdatkov ugodnejša za Kingston ali BT, saj metode najemnine zanju ni mogoče uporabiti, medtem ko metode prejemkov in izdatkov ni mogoče uporabiti za Vtesse, saj ni saj ne ustvarja dobička.
It further submits that there is no demonstration of a distortion of competition, with no reference to the other operators that compete with Kingston.
Nadalje meni, da ni dokazov o izkrivljanju konkurence, pri tem pa ne navaja drugih operaterjev, ki konkurirajo Kingstonu.
As a subsidiary legal submission, it suggests that any potential aid granted through the application of the UK rating system would be existing aid.
Njegovo dodatno pravno mnenje je tudi, da bi vsakršna morebitna pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena na podlagi sistema odmere davka Združenega kraljestva, pomenila veljavno pomoč.
COMMENTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM
IV PRIPOMBE ZDRUŽENEGA KRALJESTVA
The UK authorities submit that the rates system is a uniform statutory system, applicable to all non-domestic hereditaments in England and Wales, which aims at establishing a common yardstick, by which to assess the value of the premises.
Organi Združenega kraljestva navajajo, da je davčni sistem enotna zakonska ureditev, ki se uporablja za vse nestanovanjske nepremičnine v Angliji in Walesu in katere namen je določiti skupno merilo za oceno vrednosti objektov.
This yardstick is the rent at which it is estimated that the hereditament might be expected to be let from year to year, under certain statutory assumptions concerning the state of repair of the hereditament and the terms of the hypothetical tenancy.
Merilo je najemnina, po kateri se po ocenah lahko pričakuje, da se bo nepremičnina oddajala v najem iz leta v leto, in sicer na podlagi nekaterih zakonskih predpostavk v zvezi s tehničnim stanjem nepremičnine in pogoji hipotetičnega najema.
This value is established by the VOA, which employs professionally qualified chartered surveyors, and is required by law to exercise its expertise independently.
To vrednost določi VOA, ki zaposluje strokovno usposobljene pooblaščene ocenjevalce in ki mora svojo oceno po zakonu izvajati neodvisno.
Its decisions are subject to the independent scrutiny of the Valuation Tribunal, and upwards to the Lands Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.
Njene odločitve so predmet neodvisnih preverjanj, ki jih izvede Valuation Tribunal, in na višji ravni Lands Tribunal in Court of Appeal.
The UK authorities further explain that, in order to value this hypothetical rent, the VOA can use several methods.
Poleg tega organi Združenega kraljestva pojasnijo, da lahko VOA pri določanju vrednosti hipotetične najemnine uporabi več metod.