natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ministry considers that the continuity principle is not restricted to specific transfers, but is regarded as the main rule where the transferring entity and the acquiring entity are substantially the same.
Ministrstvo meni, da načelo kontinuitete ni omejeno na posebne prenose, temveč velja za glavno pravilo, kadar sta prevzemni subjekt in prevzeti subjekt dejansko ista.
Entra was consequently not relieved from a charge normally borne from their budgets, according to the Norwegian authorities.
Podjetje Entra po mnenju norveških organov oblasti posledično ni bilo oproščeno plačila dajatve, ki se običajno plačuje iz njihovih proračunov.
Secondly, the Ministry referred to the fact that the transfer of title in the case at hand by paragraph 3 of the contested Act was done as a change of name and not by transfer of title.
Ministrstvo je nato navedlo dejstvo, da je bil prenos lastninske pravice v obravnavanem primeru v skladu z odstavkom 3 spornega zakona opravljen kot sprememba imena in ne s prenosom lastninske pravice.
Thus, the obligation on Entra to pay document duty was never released and there was, according to the Norwegian authorities, no loss of tax revenue and hence, no consumption of State resources.
Zato nikoli ni bilo razloga, da bi podjetje plačalo takso za listine. Po mnenju norveških organov oblasti ni bilo nikakršne izgube davčnih prihodkov in torej tudi nobene porabe državnih sredstev.
Thirdly, the Norwegian authorities argued that the measure in question did not affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Norveški organi oblasti so nadalje trdili tudi, da zadevni ukrep ni vplival na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
The Ministry considered that a market survey can show whether the real estate market for urban business premises in Norway was of a purely national character and not subject to cross-border competition.
Ministrstvo je menilo, da lahko tržna raziskava pokaže, ali je norveški trg nepremičnin, ki zajema mestne poslovne prostore, izključno nacionalnega značaja in ne podvržen čezmejni konkurenci.
The Ministry considered that except for foreign investments in financial institutions, non-Norwegian investors have not operated in the Norwegian real estate market.
Ministrstvo je navedlo, da z izjemo tujih naložb v finančne ustanove vlagatelji, ki niso norveškega porekla, ne delujejo na norveškem trgu nepremičnin.
Fourthly, the Ministry argued that the exemption from the document duties and registration fees was not a selective measure.
Ministrstvo je trdilo tudi, da izvzetje iz plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo ni selektiven ukrep.
The Ministry referred to the fact that a main criterion in applying Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to a tax measure is that the measure provides an exception to the application of the tax system in favour of certain undertakings in the EFTA State.
Navedlo je dejstvo, da je glavno merilo pri uporabi člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP pri davčnem ukrepu to, ali ukrep priznava izjemo od uporabe davčnega sistema v prid določenim podjetjem v državi EFTE.
The common system applicable should thus first be determined.
Zato je treba najprej določiti skupni sistem uporabe.
If a tax measure derogates from the common system, it must be examined whether the derogation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Če davčni ukrep odstopa od skupnega sistema, je treba preučiti, ali je odstopanje upravičeno zaradi narave ali splošnega načrta davčnega sistema.
The Ministry considered that the practice with name changes as a procedure for transferring property title did not constitute a derogation from the tax system.
Ministrstvo je menilo, da sprememba imena kot postopek prenosa lastninske pravice ne pomeni odstopanja od davčnega sistema.
In case the Authority would find that the practice constituted a derogation from the tax system, the Ministry considered the derogation to be justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
V primeru, da se Organu zdi, da je tak postopek odstopanje od davčnega sistema, je ministrstvo mnenja, da je odstopanje upravičeno zaradi narave ali splošnega načrta davčnega sistema.
Finally, the Ministry referred to Commission decision C 27/99 of 5 June 2002 [17] regarding exemptions from transfer taxes in the case of restructuring of certain public undertakings into joint stock companies in Italy.
Na koncu je ministrstvo navedlo Odločbo Komisije C 27/99 z dne 5. junija 2002 [17]. glede oprostitev plačila davka na prenos v primeru prestrukturiranja določenih javnih podjetij v delniške družbe v Italiji.
According to the Ministry, the factual situation in the Italian case was similar to the case in hand and that the same considerations could be made.
Po mnenju ministrstva je bila dejanska situacija v italijanskem primeru podobna obravnavanemu primeru in bi lahko upoštevali enake preudarke.
The Ministry concluded that the exemption was justified by the nature or general scheme of the system and did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.By letter dated 30 June 2005, the Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted further arguments as to why the exemption from document duties and registration fees did not constitute an economic advantage for Entra.
Ministrstvo je sklenilo, da je oprostitev upravičena zaradi narave in splošnega načrta sistema in ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.V dopisu z dne 30. junija 2005 je Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo predložilo nadaljnje utemeljitve o tem, zakaj oprostitev plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti za podjetje Entra.
The Ministry referred to the fact that the opening balance for Entra was prepared by using the Net Present Value method (NPV).
Ministrstvo se je sklicevalo na dejstvo, da je bila otvoritvena bilanca podjetja Entra pripravljena na podlagi metode čiste sedanje vrednosti.
The future expected cash flow from each building was estimated and discounted with a required rate of return.
Prihodnji pričakovani denarni tok za vsako stavbo je bil ocenjen in diskontiran z zahtevano stopnjo donosa.
The rate of return was fixed by using the Capital Asset Pricing Model after having compared other competing real estate companies.
Stopnja donosa je bila določena z uporabo modela za določanje cen dolgoročnih naložb po opravljeni primerjavi drugih konkurenčnih nepremičninskih podjetij.
The equity was fixed at approximately 40 %, which was comparable to other similar companies.
Lastniški kapital je bil določen na približno 40 %, kar je primerljivo z drugimi podobnimi podjetji.
The Ministry considered that the calculated value of the properties was the best estimate of what an investor, ‘not having to pay the document duties and registration fees’, would have been willing to pay for the portfolio.
Ministrstvo je menilo, da je bila izračunana vrednost premoženja najboljša ocena cene, ki bi jo bil vlagatelj, „ki mu ne bi bilo treba plačati taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo,“ pripravljen plačati za portfelj.
If the buyer of the portfolio (in this case Entra) would have to pay the document duties and registration fees, the price the investor would be willing to pay would be reduced by the same amount as the document duties and registration fees.
Če bi kupec portfelja (v tem primeru Entra) moral plačati takse za listine in pristojbine za registracijo, bi bila cena, ki bi jo bil vlagatelj pripravljen plačati, zmanjšana za znesek, enak taksam za listine in pristojbinam za registracijo.
The fixed asset value of the properties in the balance sheet would have been reduced by the same amount, while financial fixed assets would have been increased by the same amount, so that the total value of the assets would have been the same.
Vrednost osnovnih sredstev za premoženje v bilanci stanja bi bila znižana za enak znesek, medtem ko bi se dolgoročne finančne naložbe povečale za enak znesek, tako da bi bila skupna vrednost sredstev enaka.
On the liability side, equity and total debt would not have changed although short-term debt would have increased corresponding to the value of the document duties and registration fees.
Na strani pasive se lastniški kapital in skupni dolg ne bi spremenila, čeprav bi se kratkoročni dolgovi povečali glede na vrednost taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo.
The Ministry concluded that the financial position of Entra had not changed as a consequence of the exemption from the document duties and registration fees.
Ministrstvo je sklenilo, da se finančni položaj podjetja Entra ni spremenil zaradi izvzetja iz plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo.
The Ministry acknowledged that one cannot draw a general conclusion that it will always be the seller of a property who de facto bears the burden of an excise duty, since this result is dependent on particular circumstances.
Ministrstvo je priznalo, da ni mogoče na splošno sklepati, da bo vedno prodajalec premoženja tisti, ki dejansko nosi breme trošarine, saj je to odvisno od določenih okoliščin.
However, in the case at hand, it would be the seller that carried the burden, as the method for the assessment of the real estate that was used in relation to Entra in the opening balance implied that (unofficial translation by the Authority): ‘In such a case, and when the NPV-method is used, all types of costs in connection to the purchase will be deducted from the purchase price, since all elements are a part of the value assessment method itself, as the buyer otherwise does not obtain the required rate of return … .).’
Vendar pa bi v obravnavanem primeru breme nosil prodajalec, saj je metoda za oceno nepremičnine, uporabljena za podjetje Entra v otvoritveni bilanci, pomenila, da (neuraden prevod Organa): „V takem primeru in kadar se uporablja metoda čiste sedanje vrednosti, se vse vrste stroškov, povezanih z nakupom, odštejejo od nakupne cene, saj so vsi elementi del same metode ocene vrednosti, ker v nasprotnem primeru kupec ne dobi zahtevane stopnje donosa …).“
By letter dated 4 May 2005, the law Firm Selmer, representing Entra, submitted comments to the Authority’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Odvetniška pisarna Selmer kot zastopnica podjetja Entra je z dopisom z dne 4. maja 2005 predložila pripombe na odločbo Organa o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
Selmer argued that the exemption from document duties and registration fees did not constitute an advantage for Entra and that the exemption was within the nature and general logic of the Norwegian system.
Trdila je, da oprostitev plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo ni pomenila prednosti za podjetje Entra in da je bila oprostitev skladna z naravo in splošno logiko norveškega sistema.
Firstly, Selmer referred to the fact that it was decided to establish the company with equity of 40 % of the total capital.
Odvetniška pisarna Selmer je najprej omenila dejstvo, da je bilo sklenjeno, da se ustanovi podjetje z lastniškim kapitalom v višini 40 % celotnega kapitala.
As a consequence of this, if Entra had to pay the document duties and registration fees, the value of the properties would have been reduced by the same amount as the document duties and registration fees and the Norwegian State would have to inject the same amount into the company, in order to keep the equity at 40 %.
Če bi podjetje Entra moralo plačati takse za listine in pristojbine za registracijo, bi bila zaradi tega vrednost premoženja zmanjšana za znesek, ki je enak taksam za listine in pristojbinam za registracijo, in norveška država bi morala vložiti enak znesek v podjetje, da bi ohranila lastniški kapital v višini 40 %.
Selmer considered that this did not change the economic situation of the company and that Entra did not receive any economic advantage.
Odvetniška pisarna Selmer je menila, da to ni spremenilo gospodarskega položaja podjetja in da podjetje Entra ni bilo deležno nobene gospodarske prednosti.
Secondly, Selmer stated that all state reorganisations have taken place in a consistent manner based on the continuity principle, and referred to the reorganisations of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), Telenor, the National Rail Company (NSB), Posten Norge, Avinor, Mesta and Statkraft.
Nadalje je odvetniška pisarna Selmer navedla, da so se vsa državna preoblikovanja izvedla na dosleden način na podlagi načela kontinuitete, in se sklicevala na preoblikovanja podjetij Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), Telenor, the National Rail Company (NSB), Posten Norge, Avinor, Mesta in Statkraft.
Selmer therefore considered that the exemption of document duties and registration fees was within the nature and general logic of the Norwegian system.
Odvetniška pisarna Selmer je zato menila, da je oprostitev taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo v skladu z naravo in splošno logiko norveškega sistema.
The Norwegian legislation concerning document duty and registration fee on the registration of transfer of real estate
Norveška zakonodaja na področju taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo ob registraciji prenosa nepremičnine
What triggers the obligation to pay document duty and registration fee?
Kateri so razlogi za plačilo takse za listine in pristojbine za registracijo?
All real estate in Norway is identified in the Real Estate Registry (‘Eiendomsregisteret’), which, from 1995, onwards contains information from ‘Tinglysingsregisteret/Grunnboken’ and ‘GAB-registeret (Grunneiendommer, Adresser og Bygninger)’ [18].
Vse nepremičnine na Norveškem so vpisane v zemljiško knjigo („Eiendomsregisteret“), ki že od leta 1995 vsebuje podatke iz registrov „Tinglysingsregisteret/Grunnboken“ in „GAB-registeret (Grunneiendommer, Adresser og Bygninger)“ [18].
Tinglysingsregisteret was established pursuant to the Registration Act 1935 No 2 (‘Lov om tinglysing’).
Tinglysingsregisteret je bil ustanovljen na podlagi Zakona o registraciji št. 2 iz leta 1935 („Lov om tinglysing“).
Every property is identified by registry identification under which information about the ownership, title and encumbrances etc. may be entered. The registry contains, inter alia, information on various rights and obligations to the property in question.
Vsaka nepremičnina ima registrsko označbo, pod katero se lahko vpišejo podatki o lastništvu, lastninski pravici, obremenitvah itd. Zemljiška knjiga vsebuje med drugim informacije o različnih pravicah in obveznostih glede določene nepremičnine.
Interested parties acting in good faith are entitled to rely on the information contained in the Real Estate Registry.
Zainteresirane stranke, ki delujejo v dobri veri, se imajo pravico zanašati na podatke iz zemljiške knjige.
Pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Act on Document Duty 1975 No 59 (‘Lov om dokumentavgift’), the registration of transfer of ownership title (‘hjemmelsoverføring’) to real estate property releases an obligation to pay document duties (‘dokumentavgift’).
V skladu z oddelkom 7(1) Zakona o taksi za listine št. 59 iz leta 1975 („Lov om dokumentavgift“) je za registracijo prenosa lastninske pravice („hjemmelsoverføring“) na nepremičnino treba plačati takse za listine („dokumentavgift“).
The tax rate is 2,5 % based on the sales value of the property.
Davčna stopnja je 2,5 % in temelji na prodajni vrednosti nepremičnine.
The new title holder is responsible for paying the duty, cf. Section 2-6 of Regulation on Document Duty, Ministry of Finance, 16 September 1975 and later amendments.
Novi imetnik lastninske pravice je odgovoren za plačilo takse (primerjaj oddelek 2–6 Uredbe o taksi za listine, Ministrstvo za finance, 16. september 1975 in kasnejše spremembe).
In addition, the registration of transfer of title in the Real Estate Registry is subject to a registration fee (‘tinglysingsgebyr’) pursuant to the Court Fee Act 1982 No 86 (‘Rettsgebyrloven’).
Poleg tega je za registracijo prenosa lastninske pravice v zemljiško knjigo treba plačati pristojbino za registracijo („tinglysingsgebyr“) v skladu z Zakonom o sodnih taksah št. 86 iz leta 1982 („Rettsgebyrloven“).
When Entra was established, this fee was fixed at NOK 982 (some EUR 123) per document registered.
Ob ustanovitvi podjetja Entra je bila ta pristojbina določena v višini 982 NOK (približno 123 EUR) za registracijo enega dokumenta.
The provisions concerning the conditions for levying the document duty and registration fee are identical.
Določbe v zvezi s pogoji za obračunavanje takse za listine in pristojbine za registracijo so enake.
As mentioned above, the excise duty is released by the registration of the transfer of title to another legal entity (‘hjemmelsoverføring’).
Kot je že navedeno, se trošarina obračuna pri registraciji prenosa lastninske pravice na drugo pravno osebo („hjemmelsoverføring“).
Consequently, if there is no transfer of title to another legal entity, but only a change of name of the same legal entity in the registry (‘grunnboken’), no excise duty will be payable.
Če pa ne gre za prenos lastninske pravice na drugo pravno osebo, temveč le za spremembo imena iste pravne osebe v registru („grunnboken“), trošarine ni treba plačati.
There is no legal obligation to register (‘tinglyse’) rights related to real estate (ownership etc.) in the registry.
Pravna obveznost registracije („tinglyse“) pravic, povezanih z nepremičnino (lastništvo itd.), v registru ne obstaja.
It is not necessary to register transfer of title in order to affect the transfer of ownership.
Za izvedbo prenosa lastništva ni treba registrirati prenosa lastninske pravice.
The holder of the rights may however choose to register his rights in order to protect his rights against third parties.
Imetnik pravic pa se lahko odloči za registracijo svojih pravic, da bi jih tako zaščitil pred tretjimi osebami.
When can the designation of the title holder be changed without inferring excise duty?
Kdaj se lahko identiteta imetnika lastninske pravice spremeni brez plačila trošarine?
The practise with regard to the payment of excise duties from 1990 to 1 July 2005 — and thus at the time Entra was established — is described in two sets of circulars, namely Circular G-37/90 from 25 May 1990 from the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the yearly circulars from the Norwegian Customs and Excise (NCE) (‘Toll- og Avgiftsdirektoratet’) [19].
Praksa v zvezi s plačilom trošarin od leta 1990 do 1. julija 2005 – torej v času, ko je bilo ustanovljeno podjetje Entra – je opisana v dveh sklopih okrožnic, in sicer v okrožnici G-37/90 z dne 25. maja 1990 norveškega Ministrstva za pravosodje in v letnih okrožnicah norveškega direktorata za carine in trošarine („Toll- og Avgiftsdirektoratet“) [19].
According to point 1.1 in the latter circulars, an exemption from stamp duty will not be granted unless there is a direct legal basis in the Act on Document Duty or by Parliamentary decisions [20].(i) Mergers
V skladu s točko 1.1 v slednjih okrožnicah se izvzetje iz plačila taks s koleki ne prizna, če ni neposredne pravne podlage v Zakonu o taksi za listine ali odločbah Parlamenta [20].(i) Združitve
In the cases of mergers, there exists, according to the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, no transfer of title for the purpose of the Act on Document Duty.
Po mnenju norveškega Ministrstva za pravosodje v primeru združitev ni prenosa lastninske pravice za namene Zakona o taksi za listine.
It is therefore sufficient that the merger be registered in the Real Estate Registry by confirming that the company has been merged with another.
Zato zadostuje, da se združitev registrira v zemljiški knjigi s potrditvijo, da se je podjetje združilo z drugim podjetjem.
Such a confirmation can be issued by the Company Registry and does not trigger the payment of registration fee and excise duty.
Tako potrditev lahko izda register podjetij in zanjo ni treba plačati pristojbine za registracijo in takse za listine.
This applies to mergers between limited liability companies within the meaning of Section 14(7) of Law No 59 of 4 June 1976 (the ‘limited liability Company Act’) [21], and also to other mergers undertaken on the basis of Chapter 14 in the same law and mergers between saving banks (Chapter 8 of Law No 1 of 24 May 1961; the ‘Saving Bank Act’) [22].(ii) Demergers under the Limited Liability Company Act of 1976
To velja za združitve med družbami z omejeno odgovornostjo v skladu z oddelkom 14(7) Zakona št. 59 z dne 4. junija 1976 („Zakon o družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo“) [21] in tudi za druge združitve na podlagi poglavja 14 navedenega zakona in združitve med hranilnicami (poglavje 8 Zakona št. 1 z dne 24. maja 1961: „Zakon o hranilnicah“) [22].(ii) Razdružitve v skladu z Zakonom o družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo iz leta 1976
Where, in the case of demergers, the ownership of real estate was transferred from the original company (‘A’) to the company which has been separated out (‘B’), both Circular G-37/90 and point 1.4 in the yearly circulars from Norwegian Customs and Excise Directorate provided that both registration fee and document duty must be paid [23].In contrast, in case the real estate remained with the original company (A) from which a part (B) was separated out, there was no obligation to pay registration fee and document duty [24].
Kadar se v primeru razdružitve lastništvo nepremičnine prenese s prvotnega podjetja („A“) na podjetje, ki se je izločilo („B“), tako okrožnica G-37/90 kot točka 1.4 v letnem cirkularju norveškega direktorata za carine in trošarine določata, da je treba plačati pristojbino za registracijo in takso za listine [23].Nasprotno pa, kadar nepremičnina ostane v prvotnem podjetju (A), iz katerega se je del (B) izločil, pristojbine za registracijo in takse za listine ni treba plačati [24].
The reason for this is that in this case the real estate is not transferred to a new legal subject (which would have been the case if the real estate had been transferred to the company which had been separated out).
Razlog za to je, da se v tem primeru nepremičnina ne prenese na novo pravno osebo (kar bi se zgodilo, če bi se nepremičnina prenesla na podjetje, ki je bilo izločeno).
Transfer of ownership from joint ownership to a form of partnership
Prenos lastništva s skupnega lastništva na obliko partnerstva
In the relevant period, transfer of ownership of real estate from joint ownership to a general partnership or limited partnership (or vice versa) implied a transfer from one legal subject to another legal subject.
V zadevnem obdobju je prenos lastništva nepremičnine s skupnega lastništva na družbo z neomejeno odgovornostjo ali komanditno družbo (ali obratno) pomenil prenos z ene pravne osebe na drugo pravno osebo.
Thus, both Circular G-37/90 and point 1.5 in the yearly circulars from the Norwegian Customs and Excise Directorate stated that this will therefore trigger payment of excise duty.
Zato tako okrožnica G-37/90 kot točka 1.5 v letni okrožnici norveškega direktorata za carine in trošarine določata, da je zaradi tega treba plačati trošarino.
Conversion from one corporate form to another
Preoblikovanje iz ene oblike podjetja v drugo
A situation which is not mentioned in the Circular is the situation where an undertaking is transformed from one form of corporation to another.
V okrožnici ni omenjena situacija, ko se družba preoblikuje iz ene oblike podjetja v drugo.
The Norwegian Government, however, argues that it should be possible to consider exemptions to this rule based on considerations linked to the continuity principle [25].
Tako se je zakonodaja izvajala do zdaj.“ Vendar pa norveška vlada trdi, da bi morale obstajati možnosti za izvzetja iz tega pravila, ki temeljijo na preudarkih, povezanih z načelom kontinuitete [25].
To this, the Authority notes that the Court of Appeal (Frostating Lagmannsrett) in an order of 1997-10-09 published in LF-1997-671 held that a conversion from a ‘kommandittselskap’ to a ‘aksjeselskap’ (‘North West Terminalen AS’) did trigger excise duty.
Glede tega Organ poudarja, da je drugostopenjsko sodišče (Frostating Lagmannsrett) v odredbi z dne 9.10.1997, ki je bila objavljena v LF-1997-671, menilo, da je za preoblikovanje iz „kommandittselskap“ v „aksjeselskap“ („North West Terminalen AS“) treba plačati trošarino.