Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 27.9.1988 1314/IV AI generated

Court denies tax exemption for home sale when owner lived there less than a year.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 27.9.1988 1314/IV
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 for tax exemption on the sale of a property. Although the taxpayer lived in the unit from June 1983 to October 1984, the court found this period did not meet the statutory requirement of continuous residence for at least one year as an own permanent home. Consequently, the court ruled that the tax authority was correct to include half of the capital gain in the taxpayer's income.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 21 § 3 mom; A sale of a property is exempt from capital gains tax only if the seller has continuously resided in it as their own permanent home for at least one year.

Keywords

AI generated
capital gains tax exemption own permanent home continuous residence requirement property sale taxation taxable income calculation residence duration threshold administrative tax review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 21 § 3 mom (21.11.1982/803)
TVL 21 § 3 mom (21.11.1982/803)
AI generated
admin_1988_uusimaa-county__1196
Court dismissed tax claim; ownership deemed to start at contract date, not transfer date, under Finnish tax law.
kho-precedent_2005_25
Swedish tax court denies widow's home sale exemption due to lack of estate division before sale.
admin_1988_uusimaa-county__523
Court rules that selling shares in a property company constitutes business income when done regularly.
admin_2011_rovaniemi__661
Court dismisses appeal regarding tax exemption for property sale due to child's insufficient residency duration.
kho-precedent_2013_201
Supreme Administrative Court allows mortgage interest deduction for divorced parent buying home with minor child.

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

Verovelvollinen oli yhdessä puolisonsa kanssa ostanut asunto-osakehuoneiston

hallintaan oikeuttavat osakkeet 1.12.1983.

Verovelvollinen oli käyttänyt huoneistoa asuntonaan 1.6.1983

alkaen 19.10.1984 asti. Puolisot oli 20.9.1984 tuomittu

avioeroon. Verovelvollisen entinen puoliso oli asunut huoneistossa

4.12.1984 asti, jolloin huoneiston hallintaan oikeuttavat

osakkeet oli myyty. Puolisoilla ei ollut alaikäisiä

lapsia.

Verotusta toimitettaessa verovelvollisen katsottiin omistusaikanaan

asuneen huoneistossa alle vuoden ajan, minkä vuoksi

verolautakunta luki osakkeiden luovutuksesta saadusta voitosta

puolet verovelvollisen tuloksi.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että verovelvollinen ei ollut käyttänyt

huoneistoa tulo- ja varallisuusverolain 21 §:n 3 momentissa

tarkoitetulla tavalla omitusaikanaan yhtäjaksoisesti

vähintään vuoden ajan omana vakituisena asuntonaan. Oman

asunnon myyntivoiton verovapautta ei siten voitu myöntää.

Verovuosi 1984.

TVL 21 § 3 mom (21.11.1982/803)