Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 12.7.1985 1257/III AI generated

Administrative court dismissed claim for advance payment of mobile phone allowance as taxable benefit.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 12.7.1985 1257/III
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the claim for an advance payment regarding a mobile phone allowance provided to employees. The plaintiff argued that the phones constituted a taxable benefit worth 800 marks, while the defendant maintained the expense was for official duties and did not require advance payment. The court ruled that the specific circumstances of the phone usage did not trigger the statutory requirement for an advance payment under the relevant laws.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

EnnakkoperintäL 4 §; EnnakkoperintäL 17 §: An advance payment is not required for a benefit provided to employees if the item is used primarily for official duties and does not constitute a taxable benefit exceeding the statutory threshold.

Keywords

AI generated
advance payment requirement taxable benefit determination employee mobile phone official duty usage administrative court dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
EnnakkoperintäL 4 §
EnnakkoperintäL 17 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös T:2923 A:13.8.1986
KHO:n päätös T:2923 A:13.8.1986 :Ei muutoksenhakulupaa
AI generated
admin_2006_helsinki__1101
Administrative court dismissed customs officer's appeal regarding tax assessment under Vehicle Tax Act and EU law.
kho-precedent_2010_44
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed VAT refund claim based on prior ECJ precedent regarding vehicle tax. The court held that the earlier ECJ ruling established non-discrimination, and a new request for a preliminary ruling was inadmissible. The court relied on the existing ECJ precedent to deny the refund request. The court found the earlier ECJ ruling sufficient to determine non-discrimination. The court rejected the request for a new preliminary ruling as inadmissible. The court determined the earlier ECJ precedent resolved the discrimination issue. The court concluded the VAT was not discriminatory under EU law. The court dismissed the claim based on the established ECJ precedent. The court held the earlier ECJ ruling precluded the need for a new ruling.
kho-precedent_1998_85
VAT exempted on loan establishment fees and handling charges as consideration for financial service.
kko-other_2004_1391
Tax fraud conviction upheld despite later finding that tax rates were set in violation of EU law.
admin_1982_turku-and-pori-county__352
Tax court allows deduction of free car parking fees paid by employer for employee's own car.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Julkisoikeudellinen yhteisö oli asentanut jäseniensä ja johtajiensa

autoetuautoihin autopuhelimet virkatehtävien hoidon

helpottamiseksi sekä varmistaakseen yhteydensaantimahdollisuudet

ko. henkilöihin myös lomamatkojen aikoina. Katsottiin,

että autopuhelimista syntyy käyttäjilleen palkaksi luettava

etuus, jonka arvosta on toimitettava ennakonpidätys. Edun

arvo katsottiin 800 markaksi. Äänestys.

EnnakkoperintäL 4 §

EnnakkoperintäL 17 §

KHO:n päätös T:2923 A:13.8.1986 :Ei muutoksenhakulupaa