Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 10.2.1987 126/III AI generated

Preliminary ruling denied because tax assessment sufficiency is a case-specific evidentiary question.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 10.2.1987 126/III
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The County Administrative Court of Uusimaa refused a preliminary ruling request regarding whether a driver's logbook suffices to prove the value of a car benefit. The court determined that the adequacy of such evidence is a factual issue to be resolved individually during the specific tax assessment process. Consequently, no preliminary ruling could be granted as the matter requires a full examination of the tax year 1986 case facts.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

EnnakkoperintäL 17 §; Preliminary rulings are not granted when the core issue concerns the sufficiency of evidence for tax assessment, which must be determined factually in each individual case.

Keywords

AI generated
preliminary ruling tax assessment evidence sufficiency car benefit driver's logbook administrative court individual case

Cited Legislation

AI generated
EnnakkoperintäL 17 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös A:24.11.1987 T:5194
KHO:n päätös A:24.11.1987 T:5194 : Ei muutoksenhakulupaa.
AI generated
kho-precedent_2000_9
VAT refund claim dismissed because tax authority's decision was not final and binding at the time of appeal.
admin_1991_hame-county__4
Court allows partial tax exemption for car gift using 1-2 week gross salary rule despite lower court rejection.
admin_1990_kuopio-county__45
Driving without a license after license revocation is invalid if the six-month waiting period has not elapsed.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2025:17
Supreme Administrative Court ruled appeal deadline is 60 days, not three years, for vehicle tax on scrapped cars. Appeal allowed as ground review right exists.
admin_1993_vaasa-county__260
Tax court dismissed claim that car benefit value was too low for commuting expense deduction.

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

Työnantaja oli pyytänyt ennakkoratkaisua muun ohella siitä,

oliko työntekijän pitämää ajopäiväkirjaa pidettävä riittävänä

selvityksenä autoedun arvoa vahvistettaessa.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että se seikka, oliko tarjottu selvitys

riittävä, oli näyttökysymys, joka on ratkaistava kussakin yksittäistapauksessa

erikseen verotusta toimitettaessa. Asiasta

ei voitu näin ollen antaa ennakkoratkaisua. Verovuosi 1986.

EnnakkoperintäL 17 §

KHO:n päätös A:24.11.1987 T:5194 : Ei muutoksenhakulupaa.