Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan LO 10.3.1989 125 AI generated

Court allows deduction of mortgage interest for a home built before permanent relocation to a distant new residence.

Case Number Vaasan LO 10.3.1989 125
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court allowed the taxpayer to deduct mortgage interest incurred on a house constructed in 1982, even though the taxpayer moved permanently to a distant municipality in 1984. The taxpayer argued the interest qualified as expenses for acquiring a permanent residence, while the tax authority contended the deduction was restricted because the construction was not completed by the time of the permanent move. The court ruled that the interest remained deductible because the construction project was initiated and the taxpayer's intent to reside there was established prior to the relocation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lain 2 §; The interest on a loan for constructing a dwelling is deductible as an expense for acquiring a permanent residence even if the construction is not completed when the taxpayer permanently relocates to a new municipality.

Keywords

AI generated
mortgage interest deduction permanent residence requirement construction timing tax residency change housing expense limit

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 29 § 1 mom 1 kohta
L velkojen korkojen vähennysoikeuden rajoittamisesta verotuksessa 2 §
AI generated
admin_1991_oulu-county__118
Court denies mortgage interest deduction for vacant land before house completion and occupancy.
admin_1987_vaasa-county__1948
Court allows tax residency shift to city where couple moved and established common home.
admin_1996_uusimaa-county__6
Administrative court dismisses rent deduction claim where housing size exceeds needs and cheaper alternatives exist.
kho-precedent_2000_3
Court dismissed tax deduction claim for mortgage on property bought for investment purposes by elderly parents.
admin_1986_hame-county__1002
Court held that temporary housing during job relocation does not qualify as a second permanent residence for tax purposes.

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

A oli ryhtynyt vuonna 1982 rakentamaan X:n kunnasta vuonna

1980 ostamalleen kiinteistölle asuinrakennusta, joka vielä

vuonna 1984 oli ollut keskeneräinen. Tuolloin A oli asunut

T:n kunnassa. Vuonna 1984 A oli muuttanut perheineen pysyvästi

asumaan Y:n kuntaan, joka oli yli 300 kilometrin päässä

X:n kunnasta ja missä A:lla oli vuoden 1984 elokuusta alkaen

ollut vakituinen työpaikka. Mainitun asuinrakennuksen

rakentamista varten otettujen velkojen korkoja ei näissä

oloissa voitu pitää velkojen korkojen vähennysoikeuden

rajoittamisesta verotuksessa annetun lain 2 §:ssä tarkoitettuina

A:n oman tai perheen vakituisen asunnon hankkimisesta

aiheutuneiden velkojen korkoina. Verovuosi 1984.

TVL 29 § 1 mom 1 kohta

L velkojen korkojen vähennysoikeuden rajoittamisesta verotuksessa

2 §