Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion LO 25.3.1987 210/II AI generated

Court dismisses air purifier purchase as deductible medical expenses due to lack of doctor's recommendation.

Case Number Kuopion LO 25.3.1987 210/II
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 claim to deduct the cost of an air purifier as medical expenses. Although the wife suffered from allergies and a doctor later deemed the device potentially justified, the county court found no sufficient basis for the deduction at the time of purchase. The court ruled that without a prior medical recommendation, the expenditure does not qualify as a deductible illness-related cost under the tax law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 29 § 1 mom 6 kohta: An expenditure on an air purifier is not deductible as medical expenses unless a physician explicitly recommends it prior to the purchase.

Keywords

AI generated
tax deduction medical expenses air purifier doctor recommendation allergy treatment tax law administrative court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 29 § 1 mom 6 kohta
AI generated
admin_1987_lapland-county__267
Administrative court allows deduction of air purifier purchase as medical expense for family illness.
market_2003_4
Market court dismissed damages claim but ordered public tender correction due to procedural flaws in procurement decision.
market_2010_574
Market Court voids public procurement decision due to flawed scoring and fails to award damages for procedural errors.
admin_2018_hameenlinna__366
Administrative court allows income support claim for necessary animal-derived thyroid medication costs.
admin_2005_kuopio__554
Administrative court dismisses income support claim for private psoriasis treatment costs deemed unnecessary.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä asiassa oli, onko ilmanpuhdistimen hankintameno

vähennyskelpoinen sairauskuluina.

Verovelvollisen vaimo sairasti lääkärintodistuksen mukaan allergista

nuhaa ja astmaa. Verovelvollinen oli ilman lääkärin

kehotusta hankkinut kotiinsa ilmanpuhdistimen. Hankinnan jälkeen

annetussa todistuksessa keuhkosairauksien poliklinikan

osastonlääkäri oli todennut, että allergisen taustan huomioiden

po. laitteen hankintaa voitaneen pitää perusteltuna.

Verolautakunta hylkäsi vähennysvaatimuksen.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, ettei näissä oloissa osaakaan laitteen

hankintamenosta ollut pidettävä vähennyskelpoisena.

Verovuosi 1984

TVL 29 § 1 mom 6 kohta