Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 6.11.1989 779/III AI generated

Administrative court dismissed claim to add home phone benefit to income tax due to prior tax board decision.

Case Number Hämeen LO 6.11.1989 779/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 state prosecutor's request to include a home phone benefit in the taxpayer's income tax calculation. The tax board had previously ruled against taxing the authoradio phone benefit but failed to explicitly address the home phone benefit. The court held that without a specific tax board decision on the home phone benefit, the prosecutor could not legally demand its inclusion in the tax assessment.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VerotusL 83 §; VerotusL 91 § 2 mom; LOL 2 § 1 mom 3 kohta: A claim to add a specific tax benefit to taxable income is inadmissible if the competent tax authority has not made a prior decision regarding that specific benefit.

Keywords

AI generated
income tax assessment tax benefit exclusion administrative review prior tax decision state prosecutor claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VerotusL 83 §
VerotusL 91 § 2 mom
LOL 2 § 1 mom 3 kohta
AI generated
admin_1990_kuopio-county__468
Administrative court orders tax board to consider employer withholding as tax reduction without proof of refund.
admin_1985_uusimaa-county__1101
Tax Board error in transferring tax reduction case to County Court led to decision reversal.
admin_1991_kuopio-county__239
Administrative court dismissed tax litigation costs claim due to lack of jurisdiction over underlying tax appeal.
admin_1991_kuopio-county__110
Advance tax information binding within one year; late claim admissible if submitted before final tax decision.
admin_2012_vaasa__2471
Administrative court upheld tax assessment after overturning a prior decision that reduced taxable income due to new information.

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

Lääninverovirasto ilmoitti ennakontarkastuskertomuksen perusteella, että X oli saanut edun autoradiopuhelimesta. Verotoimisto kuuli ilmoituksen johdosta X:ää. Hän totesi vastineessaan muun muassa, että hänellä oli ollut kotipuhelinetu. Verolautakunta päätti, ettei X:ää jälkiveroteta autoradiopuhelinedusta. Lääninoikeus katsoi, ettei valtion- ja kunnanasiamies voinut vaatia kotipuhelinedun lisäämistä jälkiverotuksin X:n tuloon, koska verolautakunta ei ollut tehnyt päätöstä tuosta kotipuhelinedusta.

Äänestyksessä vähemmistöön jäänyt jäsen tutki valtion- ja kunnanasiamiehen vaatimuksen hallintoriitahakemuksena.

VerotusL 83 §

VerotusL 91 § 2 mom

LOL 2 § 1 mom 3 kohta