Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 31.3.1989 167/I AI generated

Property tax claim dismissed because late submission of deduction request precludes error-based relief.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 31.3.1989 167/I
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 appeal regarding a property tax declaration that omitted a building acquisition deduction. The taxpayer argued the omission was an error, but the court found the request was submitted after the tax assessment period ended. Consequently, the court ruled that the late submission could not be treated as an error, denying the deduction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 26 § 2 mom; A taxpayer's request for a tax deduction submitted after the assessment period expires cannot be considered an error and thus cannot be granted.

Keywords

AI generated
property tax deduction late submission assessment period error relief administrative appeal tax assessment omission claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 26 § 2 mom

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:1971-II-553
KHO:1971-II-553 ja KHO:1978-B-II-545
KHO:1978-B-II-545
KHO:1971-II-553 ja KHO:1978-B-II-545
AI generated
kho-precedent_2010_2
Supreme Administrative Court allows late depreciation claim for rental property when no statute of limitations exists.
admin_1990_lapland-county__214
Administrative court allows deduction of construction costs for rental income under Finnish Income Tax Act.
admin_1991_uusimaa-county__502
Administrative court dismissed appeal allowing different depreciation amounts in state and municipal tax.
admin_1991_kuopio-county__276
Company denied deduction for greenhouse costs after tax authority increased prior year deduction.
admin_1996_northern-karelia-county__130
Administrative court quiesced tax authority's decision for failing to sufficiently substantiate grounds under procedural law.

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 kiinteistöveroilmoitukseensa merkinnyt

"ei poistoa". Valituksessaan hän ilmoitti, että poisto oli

jäänyt veroilmoituksessa epähuomiossa tekemättä ja vaati

kiinteistötulosta poistoa rakennuksen hankintmenon osalta.

Koska poistovaatimus oli esitetty vasta verotuksen päättymisen

jälkeen ja poistovaatimuksen tekemättä jättämisen ei

voitu katsoa johtuneen erehdyksestä, lääninoikeus katsoi,

ettei kiinteistötulosta voitu tehdä poistoa ja hylkäsi valituksen.

Ks. KHO:1971-II-553 ja KHO:1978-B-II-545

TVL 26 § 2 mom