natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Similarly, the 2004 rateable value is set by reference to the economic conditions of the 1998 market, while the 2005 valuation is set by reference to the 2003 market conditions.
Podobno je obdavčljiva vrednost za leto 2004 določena z upoštevanjem gospodarskih razmer trga iz leta 1998, medtem ko je vrednotenje za leto 2005 določeno z upoštevanjem tržnih razmer iz leta 2003.
The UK authorities have pointed out that the economic conditions in the telecommunications sector were substantially different in 1993, 1998 and 2003.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so poudarili, da so bile gospodarske razmere v sektorju telekomunikacij v letih 1993, 1998 in 2003 zelo različne.
First, the telecommunications market grew significantly between 1993 and 1998, and between 1998 and 2003.
Prvič, trg telekomunikacij se je bistveno povečal med letoma 1993 in 1998 ter med letoma 1998 in 2003.
Thus BT's physical network in 2000 was considered in a market that was bigger than the market in which BT's physical network was considered in 1999.
Tako se je fizično omrežje BT leta 2000 upoštevalo na trgu, ki je bilo večje od trga, na katerem se je fizično omrežje BT upoštevalo leta 1999.
This necessarily meant that its 2000 rateable value was likely to be significantly higher than in 1999.
To je nujno pomenilo, da bo njegova obdavčljiva vrednost za leto 2000 verjetno višja kot za leto 1999.
Furthermore, in 1993, the telecommunications sector was in the process of opening up to unprecedented competition and the effect on BT's trading position was likely to be profound.
Poleg tega je bil sektor telekomunikacij leta 1993 v procesu odpiranja konkurenci, kot je dotlej še ni bilo, in lahko se je pričakovalo, da bo vpliv na položaj pri poslovanju BT zelo velik.
That is confirmed by the fact that BT's market shares fell from 87 % to below 70 % over that period.
To potrjuje dejstvo, da so tržni deleži BT v tem obdobju s 87 % padli pod 70 %.
This anticipation had a downward effect on BT's rateable value for each of the years of that period.
Zaradi takšnega pričakovanja se je znižala obdavčljiva vrednost BT za posamezno leto v navedenem obdobju.
Conversely, in 1998, less competition could be anticipated, which is again confirmed by BT's relatively stable market shares of around 70 % over the 2000-2005 period.
Nasprotno je bilo v letu 1998 mogoče pričakovati manjšo konkurenco, kar spet potrjujejo dokaj stabilni tržni deleži BT, ki so v obdobju 2000–2005 znašali okrog 70 %.
This anticipation was likely to have an upward effect on BT's valuation over that period.
Takšno pričakovanje je lahko pomenilo, da se bo vrednotenje BT v navedenem obdobju verjetno povečevalo.
Furthermore, the most valuable parts of BT's and Kingston's networks consist of their local access networks, the value of which has significantly increased with the exploitation of broadband DSL technology.
Poleg tega najdragocenejše dele omrežij BT in Kingstona sestavljata njuni omrežji za lokalni dostop, vrednost katerih se je bistveno povečala z uporabo širokopasovne tehnologije DSL.
This development, which could not be fully anticipated in 1993, created an upward effect on the valuations of BT's and Kingston's networks and can explain why their valuations were significantly increased in 2000 and 2005.
Ta razvoj, ki ga leta 1993 ni bilo mogoče v celoti pričakovati, je povzročil višje vrednotenje omrežij BT in Kingstona ter lahko pojasni, zakaj sta se njuni vrednotenji bistveno povečali v letih 2000 in 2005.
The Commission also notes that the fact that only physical changes can be taken into account in the economic context of the AVD can explain why BT's rateable value fell over the life of the 1995-2000 and 2000-2005 rating lists despite the fact that its receipts or profits were stable or improving.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da dejstvo, da se v gospodarskem okviru datuma predhodnega vrednotenja lahko upoštevajo samo fizične spremembe, lahko razloži, zakaj se je obdavčljiva vrednost BT med trajanjem seznamov za odmero davka v obdobjih 1995–2000 in 2000–2005 znižala, čeprav so bili njegovi prejemki ali dobički stabilni ali so se povečevali.
Indeed, such elements as the growth of the market, the increase in price levels, technological changes or changes in the pattern of demand, which are factors that can have a positive impact on BT's results, cannot be taken into account by the VOA when carrying out its yearly revisions of the rating list.
VOA ob letnih popravkih seznama za odmero dejansko ne more upoštevati elementov, kot so rast trga, povečanje ravni cen, tehnološke spremembe ali spremembe vzorcev povpraševanja, torej dejavnikov, ki lahko pozitivno vplivajo na rezultate BT.
The Commission finally takes note that a new annual revision system which will be applied to the 2005-2010 period is no longer based on the evolution of market shares, but will consist of the application of a full annual R&E valuation.
Komisija je na koncu pozorna na to, da novi sistem letnih popravkov, ki se bo uporabljal za obdobje 2005–2010, ne temelji več na gibanju tržnih deležev, ampak bo obsegal uporabo popolnega vrednotenja letnih prejemkov in izdatkov.
The UK authorities have indicated that this system will fully reflect all physical changes, including newly lit fibres.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so navedli, da bo ta sistem v celoti odražal vse fizične spremembe, vključno z novo priključenimi vlakni.
However, since this revision system has not been finalised yet, the Commission has not had the opportunity to analyse it and its final conclusion in the Articles of this Decision will therefore be limited to the 1995-2005 period.
Ker pa ta sistem popravkov še ni bil dokončno oblikovan, ga Komisija še ni imela priložnosti preučiti, zato bo njena dokončna ugotovitev v členih te odločbe omejena na obdobje 1995–2005.
The Commission concludes that the UK authorities applied the appropriate valuation method to BT and Kingston and that the general principles concerning the application of the R&E method were respected by the UK authorities when they applied that method to BT and Kingston.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so organi Združenega kraljestva pri BT in Kingstonu uporabili ustrezno metodo vrednotenja ter da so spoštovali splošna načela o uporabi metode prejemkov in izdatkov, ko so navedeno metodo uporabili pri BT in Kingstonu.
Does the R&E method confer an advantage with respect to the rental method?
Ali metoda prejemkov in izdatkov prinaša ugodnost v primerjavi z metodo najemnine?
Does the R&E method result in an overall undervaluation of BT's and Kingston's networks?
Ali metoda prejemkov in izdatkov povzroči skupno podvrednotenje omrežij BT in Kingstona?
The next point to be considered is whether the application of the R&E method to BT and Kingston confers an advantage on those firms in comparison with their competitors that are valued under the rental method.
Naslednje vprašanje, o katerem je treba razmisliti, je, ali uporaba metode prejemkov in izdatkov pri BT in Kingstonu pomeni ugodnost za navedeni podjetji v primerjavi z njunimi konkurenti, ki so ovrednoteni po metodi najemnine.
The question is whether this different treatment is likely to lead to a different result than that which would arise if the valuation of those firms were carried out using the same methodology.
Vprašanje je, ali takšna različna obravnava lahko povzroči drugačen rezultat, kot če bi se vrednotenje navedenih podjetij izvedlo z enako metodologijo.
In line with the comments of the UK authorities, the Commission is of the view that the existence of an advantage to BT and Kingston could be demonstrated in the following ways :
V skladu s pripombami organov Združenega kraljestva Komisija meni, da je obstoj ugodnosti za BT in Kingston mogoče dokazati tako, da se pokaže:
by showing that the application of the rental method to BT and Kingston would be possible and result in a higher rateable value than the R&E method, or
da bi bilo pri BT in Kingstonu mogoče uporabiti metodo najemnine, ki bi povzročila višjo obdavčljivo vrednost kot metoda prejemkov in izdatkov, ali
by showing the application of the R&E method to the other telecommunication operators would be possible and would systematically result in a lower rateable value than that derived from the rental method, or
da bi bilo pri drugih telekomunikacijskih operaterjih mogoče uporabiti metodo prejemkov in izdatkov, ki bi sistematično povzročila nižjo obdavčljivo vrednost kot metoda, izpeljana iz metode najemnine, ali
by showing that, using other correct and relevant comparisons, telecommunication operators that are assessed under the rental method are taxed more heavily as compared with BT and Kingston.
s pravilnimi in ustreznimi primerjavami, da za telekomunikacijske operaterje, ki so ovrednoteni po metodi najemnine, v primerjavi z BT in Kingstonom velja višja obdavčitev.
Demonstrating the existence of a possible advantage to BT and Kingston following the reasoning under point (a) supposes that the rental method is applicable to BT and Kingston.
Pri dokazovanju obstoja morebitne ugodnosti za BT in Kingston na podlagi argumentov iz točke (a) se šteje, da se metoda najemnine lahko uporabi za BT in Kingston.
For the reasons explained in recitals 124 to 127, there is not enough rental evidence to assess the rateable value of their hereditaments.
Zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v uvodnih izjavah 124 do 127, ni dovolj dokazil o najemnini za oceno obdavčljive vrednosti njunih nepremičnin.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that it is not possible to establish that BT's and Kingston's rateable values would have been higher if the rental method had been applied to them.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da ni mogoče dokazati, da bi bili obdavčljivi vrednosti BT in Kingstona višji, če bi pri njiju uporabili metodo najemnine.
Demonstrating the existence of an advantage to BT and Kingston following the reasoning under point b) would involve applying the R&E method to a representative sample of telecommunication operators which have been valued under the rental method.
Dokazovanje obstoja ugodnosti za BT in Kingston na podlagi argumentov iz točke (b) bi vključevalo uporabo metode prejemkov in izdatkov na reprezentativnem vzorcu telekomunikacijskih operaterjev, ki so bili ovrednoteni po metodi najemnine.
The Commission is not in a position to carry out these valuations itself.
Komisija ne more sama izvesti teh vrednotenj.
The VOA has also explained that, without the business plans of these firms, it cannot carry out these valuations under the R&E method.
VOA je tudi pojasnila, da brez poslovnih načrtov teh podjetij teh vrednotenj ne more izvesti po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov.
It is also noted that none of the third parties has produced evidence that the application of the R&E method would result in lower valuations of their hereditaments: in its submission, UKCTA indicated that it could not calculate what its members would have paid in rates under the R&E method.
Navedeno je tudi, da nobena od tretjih strank ni predložila dokazov, da bi uporaba metode prejemkov in izdatkov povzročila nižji vrednotenji njunih nepremičnin: UKCTA je v svoji utemeljitvi navedel, da ne more izračunati, kolikšen davek bi njegova člana plačala po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov.
On the basis of those considerations, the Commission must therefore conclude that the method in point b) cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of a possible advantage to BT and Kingston.
Na podlagi navedenih ugotovitev mora Komisija torej sklepati, da metode iz točke (b) ni mogoče uporabiti pri dokazovanju obstoja morebitne ugodnosti za BT in Kingston.
The method suggested in point c) would be to use relevant comparisons to establish that BT and Kingston are under-taxed under the R&E method.
Metoda, predlagana v točki (c), bi pomenila uporabo ustreznih primerjav, s katerimi se dokaže, da sta BT in Kingston po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov obdavčena prenizko.
This method was suggested by the Commission in the decision to initiate the procedure: according to the information that was then available, BT was paying 2 % of its receipts in property tax, while Vtesse was paying two or three times as much.
To metodo je Komisija predlagala v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka: na podlagi tedaj razpoložljivih podatkov je BT 2 % svojih prejemkov plačeval v obliki davka od premoženja, medtem ko je Vtesse plačeval dvakrat ali trikrat več.
As a preliminary remark on the use and application of the rates/receipts ratio, the Commission notes that, according to Vtesse's comments, the revenue of telecommunications operators should be adjusted in order to allow a direct comparison of BT's rates/receipts ratio with that of other telecommunication operators.
Komisija kot uvodno pripombo v zvezi z rabo in uporabo razmerja med davkom in prejemki navaja, da je po pripombah Vtesse treba prihodek telekomunikacijskih operaterjev prilagoditi tako, da se omogoči neposredna primerjava razmerja med davkom in prejemki BT z razmerjem drugih telekomunikacijskih operaterjev.
Vtesse claims that most operators pay significant fees to BT for the carriage and termination of traffic and that these fees do not relate to the rateable assets of these operators and therefore should not be used in any comparison of the rates burden.
Vtesse trdi, da večina operaterjev BT plačuje visoke pristojbine za prenos in zaključevanje prometa ter da se te pristojbine ne nanašajo na obdavčljivo premoženje teh operaterjev in se zato ne smejo uporabiti pri primerjavi davčne obremenitve.
That argument cannot be accepted.
Navedene trditve ni mogoče sprejeti.
The ratios to be compared should relate rates either to gross receipts or to net receipts.
Razmerja, ki jih je treba primerjati, morajo davek povezovati z bruto prejemki ali neto prejemki.
The ‘halfway’ approach suggested by Vtesse which consists of deducting some specific costs, such as interconnection fees, and not others does not seem accurate.
Pristop „na pol poti“, ki ga predlaga Vtesse in po katerem se nekateri posebni stroški, na primer pristojbine za medsebojno povezovanje, odštejejo, drugi pa ne, se ne zdi pravi.
First, it is not correct to assert, as Vtesse does, that the fees for the carriage and termination of traffic do not relate to the rateable assets of the operator under consideration: those fees are on the contrary necessary for the origination and termination of some of the traffic carried over their networks and therefore they directly relate to the operation of those networks.
Prvič, ni res, kar trdi Vtesse, da se pristojbine za prenos in zaključevanje prometa ne nanašajo na obdavčljivo premoženje obravnavanega operaterja: nasprotno, navedene pristojbine so nujne za izvor in zaključevanje določenega prometa, ki se prenaša prek njihovih omrežij, zato se neposredno nanašajo na delovanje navedenih omrežij.
Secondly, those fees have a direct impact on the hypothetical rent that a putative tenant would be ready to pay for the network under consideration, since they are part of the costs that are borne for the use of that network.
Drugič, navedene pristojbine neposredno vplivajo na hipotetično najemnino, ki bi jo bil domnevni najemnik pripravljen plačati za obravnavano omrežje, saj so del stroškov, ki se krijejo za uporabo navedenega omrežja.
Finally, those interconnection fees are also a significant part of BT's income and as a result, they have a clear upward effect on BT's rateable value.
In končno, navedene pristojbine za medsebojno povezovanje pomenijo tudi precejšen delež prihodkov BT zato jasno zvišujejo obdavčljivo vrednost BT.
Since the fees affect the hypothetical rent and rateable value of all telecommunications operators concerned, there is no justification for deducting them from the revenues generated by the telecommunications operators when carrying out a proper comparison between their rates/revenues ratios.
Ker navedene pristojbine vplivajo na hipotetično najemnino in obdavčljivo vrednost vseh zadevnih telekomunikacijskih operaterjev, ni razloga, da bi jih pri ustrezni primerjavi razmerij med davkom in prihodki telekomunikacijskih operaterjev odšteli od prihodkov, ki so jih ti ustvarili.
On the question of the relevance of the rates/receipts ratio, the Commission notes that, in the view of the VOA and OFCOM, the rates/receipts ratio is not pertinent for assessing the burden of rates on the different operators.
V zvezi z vprašanjem pomembnosti razmerja med davkom in prejemki Komisija navaja, da razmerje med davkom in prejemki po mnenju agencije VOA in urada OFCOM ni primerno za oceno bremena davka na različne operaterje.
In the light of their comments and objections, the Commission can agree that this ratio is not a correct tool for assessing the fairness of the rates system, which is a tax on the value of a property, and not a tax on receipts or added value.
Ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb in ugovorov se Komisija lahko strinja, da to razmerje ni ustrezno orodje za oceno pravičnosti sistema davka, ki je davek na vrednost premoženja in ne davek na prejemke ali dodano vrednost.
As argued by OFCOM in particular, it appears that this ratio will vary according to the value of the services the operators provide to customers through similar rateable assets and according to how efficiently they use their assets.
Kot je trdil zlasti OFCOM, se zdi, da se bo to razmerje spreminjalo glede na vrednost storitev, ki jih operaterji uporabnikom zagotavljajo s podobnimi obdavčljivim premoženjem, in glede na to, kako učinkovito uporabljajo svoje premoženje.
The Commission can therefore conclude that this ratio is at best indicative and that no firm conclusion can be drawn from it.
Komisija lahko torej ugotovi, da je to razmerje v najboljšem primeru okvirno in da iz njega ni mogoče izpeljati nobenega trdnega sklepa.
Moreover, even if this ratio is to be taken into consideration, it does not allow any useful conclusion to be drawn.
Še več, čeprav je to razmerje treba upoštevati, ne omogoča izpeljave nobenega uporabnega sklepa.
According to figures provided by OFCOM for twelve telecommunication operators, the rates/receipts ratio ranges from 0,59 % for Your Communication to 2,32 % for Fibernet, with BT standing at 1,28 % and Kingston standing at 0,92 %.
Po podatkih, ki jih je OFCOM predložil za dvanajst telekomunikacijskih operaterjev, razmerje med davkom in prihodki sega od 0,59 % za Your Communication do 2,32 % za Fibernet, pri čemer za BT znaša 1,28 % in za Kingston 0,92 %.
It appears that neither BT nor Kingston pays a significantly smaller share of their revenues in business rates than most of the other telecommunications operators.
Zdi se, da niti BT niti Kingston ne plačuje bistveno manjšega deleža svojih prihodkov v obliki poslovnega davka kot večina drugih telekomunikacijskih operaterjev.
On this question, it is further to be noted that there is some disagreement on the calculation of Vtesse's rates/receipts ratio.
V zvezi s tem vprašanjem je treba tudi navesti, da obstaja določeno nesoglasje v zvezi z izračunom razmerja med davkom in prejemki za Vtesse.
For 2004, Vtesse claims that this ratio was 13,46 %.
Vtesse trdi, da je za leto 2004 to razmerje znašalo 13,46 %.
This figure was based on a rateable value of GBP 429000 (which implied rates of GBP 195624) and ‘recurring revenues’ of GBP 1453146.
Ta številka je temeljila na obdavčljivi vrednosti v višini 429000 GBP (kar je pomenilo davek v višini 195624 GBP) in „tekočih prihodkih“ v višini 1453146 GBP.
However, according to the UK authorities, Vtesse' rateable value for 2004 was subsequently reduced to GBP 145000 (implying rates of GBP 66120), since it appeared that it was not actually in occupation of a hereditament in Hounslow, valued at GBP 284000.
Vendar se je obdavčljiva vrednost Vtesse za leto 2004 po navedbah organov Združenega kraljestva pozneje znižala na 145000 GBP (kar je pomenilo davek v višini 66120 GBP), ker se je izkazalo, da dejansko nima v posesti nepremičnine v Hounslowu, ovrednotene na 284000 GBP.
Furthermore, it appears from Vtesse's report and financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2004 that its total turnover in 2004 was GBP 4744228.
Iz poročila Vtesse in iz izkazov stanja za leto, ki se je končalo 31. decembra 2004, tudi izhaja, da je njegov skupni promet v letu 2004 znašal 4744228 GBP.
On the basis of its total turnover, which is the figure used by OFCOM for comparison in the case of the other telecommunications operators, Vtesse's rates/turnover ratio in 2004 falls to 1,4 %, or 2,2 % if one includes the rates paid by Vtesse on its offices, which are valued separately.
Na podlagi njegovega skupnega prometa, številke, ki jo je OFCOM uporabil za primerjavo pri drugih telekomunikacijskih operaterjih, se razmerje med davkom in prometom Vtesse v letu 2004 zmanjša na 1,4 % ali na 2,2 %, če vključimo davek, ki ga je Vtesse plačal za svoje urade, ki se vrednotijo ločeno.
These figures are more in line with the conclusions of OFCOM, which found that Vtesse had paid 2,1 % of its revenues in rates in 2003.
Te številke so bolj v skladu s sklepi urada OFCOM, ki je ugotovil, da je Vtesse leta 2003 2,1 % svojih prihodkov plačal z davkom.
On the basis of these figures, there is no clear difference in the tax burden borne by BT and by Vtesse.
Na podlagi teh številk ni jasne razlike med davčno obremenitvijo za BT in Vtesse.
Other ways of comparing the tax burden imposed on the different telecommunications operators have been suggested by OFCOM and the UK authorities.
OFCOM in organi Združenega kraljestva so predlagali druge načine za primerjavo davčnih obremenitev za različne telekomunikacijske operaterje.
OFCOM suggested that the rateable value/connection ratio for BT, Kingston, NTL and Telewest should be compared.
OFCOM je predlagal, da je treba primerjati razmerje med obdavčljivo vrednostjo in priključkom za BT, Kingston, NTL in Telewest.
The ratio is very similar for these four companies.
Razmerja teh štirih družb so si zelo podobna.
In fact, Kingston is valued at a slightly higher level than the other operators, which may be explained by the fact that, being significantly smaller than the others, it may not have the same economies of scale.
V resnici je Kingston ovrednoten po rahlo višji stopnji kot drugi operaterji, kar je mogoče razložiti z dejstvom, da ne more imeti enakih ekonomij obsega, ker je bistveno manjši od drugih.
OFCOM's suggested comparison is all the more relevant given the similarities between these four companies, as locally provided access network services are an important part of their overall business.
Primerjava, ki jo je predlagal OFCOM, je še toliko ustreznejša glede na podobnosti med temi štirimi družbami, saj je lokalno zagotavljanje storitev omrežja za dostop pomemben del njihovega celotnega poslovanja.
It is true, however, that NTL and Telewest are valued on the basis of method derived from the contractor's basis method.
Kljub temu je res, da sta NTL in Telewest ovrednotena na podlagi metode, ki je izpeljana iz metode pogodbenikove osnove.
Therefore, such a ratio is not directly pertinent for assessing the alleged discrepancy between the valuations carried out under the rental method and under the R&E method.
Zato takšno razmerje ni neposredno primerno za oceno domnevne razlike med vrednotenji, izvedenimi po metodi najemnine, in vrednotenji po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov.
Nevertheless, it shows that using different methodologies and comparing BT and Kingston with firms more directly comparable than Vtesse leads to similar results, which tends to corroborate the VOA's assertion that, in principle, all valuation methods should lead to the same result.
Vseeno pa to dokazuje, da uporaba različnih metodologij ter primerjava BT in Kingstona s podjetji, ki so bolj neposredno primerljiva kot Vtesse, pripeljeta do podobnih rezultatov, kar je lahko v podporo trditvi agencije VOA, da morajo vse metode načeloma pripeljati do enakega rezultata.