Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion LO 10.2.1989 80/I AI generated

Court held shared gym business is partners' joint activity, not a separate taxable company.

Case Number Kuopion LO 10.2.1989 80/I
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Kuopio dismissed the Tax Board's decision to treat a shared gym as a separate taxable open company. The Tax Board had classified the joint physical therapy and fitness business as a distinct entity, taxing its revenue separately from the partners. The court reversed this, ruling that the operation constituted the partners' own professional activities rather than an independent corporate venture.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 18 § 4 mom; The court established that a shared business facility operated by professionals for their own trade does not constitute a separate taxable open company but remains the partners' joint professional activity.

Keywords

AI generated
shared business facility taxable open company joint professional activity partnership taxation separate legal entity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 18 § 4 mom
AI generated
kho-precedent_1998_12
Supreme Administrative Court allowed tax deduction for share loss by permitting application of income tax law section 56.
admin_1988_mikkeli-county__65
Court held two husband-wife commanditee companies in same premises must be one taxpayer.
admin_1986_kuopio-county__513
Administrative court dismissed appeal; registered open company taxed separately despite partner's request for individual taxation under Tax Act.
admin_1987_hame-county__28
Administrative court dismissed tax deduction claim for interest on capital share in a pass-through partnership.
admin_2005_hameenlinna__211
Shareholder using company car privately received taxable hidden dividend benefit without payment.

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

Onko lääkintävoimistelijan ja kuntohoitajan yhteistä fysikaalista

hoitolaitosta pidettävä erikseen verotettavana

liiketoimintaa harjoittavana avoimena yhtiönä, vaiko yhtiön

osakkaiden muodostamana ns. jaettavana yhtymänä.

Verovuoden liikevaihto oli 369.376 mk,

maksetut palkat osakkaille 130.000 mk,

maksetut palkat vieraille 790 mk.

Verolautakunta oli katsonut yhtiön yhtymäksi ja jakanut yhtymän

tulon verotettavaksi osakkaiden tuloina.

Tutkijalautakunta katsoi yhtiön avoimena yhtiönä erilliseksi

verovelvolliseksi ja oikaisi osakkaiden jako-osuuksia

vastaavasti.

Lääninoikeus kumosi tutkijalautakunnan päätöksen ja saattoi

verolautakunnan toimittaman verotuksen voimaan. Harjoitettua

toimintaa pidettiin osakkaiden ammattitoimintana eikä yhtiötä

ollut pidettävä erillisenä verovelvollisena.

TVL 18 § 4 mom