Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 7.1.1987 28/I AI generated

Administrative court dismissed tax deduction claim for interest on capital share in a pass-through partnership.

Case Number Hämeen LO 7.1.1987 28/I
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 taxpayer's request for a property income deduction regarding interest payments received from a pass-through partnership. The lower authority had granted the deduction based on the interest being taxable income, but the Administrative Court ruled that the interest did not constitute a qualifying property income under the relevant tax law. Consequently, the court held that the deduction was not applicable to this specific type of income derived from the partnership structure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 32 a §; The interest received by a partner from a pass-through partnership on their capital contribution does not qualify as property income for the purpose of granting a property income deduction.

Keywords

AI generated
property income deduction pass-through partnership taxable interest income capital share interest administrative court review income tax law deduction eligibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 32 a §
AI generated
admin_1997_kuopio-county__134
Silent partner's undistributed profit share is taxable income regardless of actual receipt.
admin_2010_vaasa__83
Administrative court dismisses dividend income tax on silent partner when company is under bankruptcy proceedings.
kho-precedent_1997_42
Silent partner's uncollected profits from dissolved partnership are taxable as income despite inability to collect.
admin_1992_lapland-county__1235
Court allows deduction of silent partner's income share from individual tax return without adjusting company income.
admin_1987_kuopio-county__625
Court allows tax deduction for business interest even when company equity is negative.

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

Verolautakunta oli lukenut verovelvollisen tuloksi kommandiittiyhtiön, joka verotuksessa katsottiin niin sanotuksi jakoyhtymäksi, äänettömälle yhtiömiehelle maksaman yhtiösopimuksen mukaisen voitto-osuuden eli 10 000 markan pääomapanokselle lasketun 15 prosentin koron 1 500 markkaa tuosta yhtiöstä saatuna jako-osana. Tutkijalautakunta oli, katsottuaan jako-osuuden verovelvollisen veronalaiseksi korkotuloksi, myöntänyt hänelle omaisuustulovähennyksen voitto-osuuden määräisenä.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, ettei kysymyksessä ollut sellainen korkotulo, jonka perusteella voitaisiin myöntää omaisuustulovähennys.

Verovuosi 1984.

TVL 32 a §