Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 4.5.1990 403/II AI generated

Employee commuting daily between two fixed workplaces is not temporary travel; both locations constitute separate permanent employment sites.

Case Number Hämeen LO 4.5.1990 403/II
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court ruled that daily commuting between two fixed workplaces constitutes separate permanent employment sites rather than temporary travel. The tax authority and lower court determined that daily payments for travel between these locations were taxable income because the employee held two distinct jobs. The court upheld this decision by rejecting the argument that the travel was temporary, establishing that the nature of the work defined the employment status.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 22 § 1 mom 8 kohta ja 2 mom: Daily commuting between two fixed workplaces does not constitute temporary travel; both locations are deemed separate permanent employment sites, making related travel payments taxable income.

Keywords

AI generated
permanent employment sites temporary travel determination taxable income classification daily commuting pattern multiple workplaces status

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 22 § 1 mom 8 kohta
TVL 22 § 2 mom
AI generated
admin_1987_oulu-county__1470
Court allows daily allowance from fishing ponds to be taxable income for a worker.
labour_1986_102
Labor court partially allows union claim for daily allowance breach and fines union for supervision failure.
admin_2001_turku__316
Administrative court denies meal allowance deduction for mobile asphalt workers lacking permanent site.
kho-precedent_2015_120
Foreign work continuity not broken by return to Finland before resuming work in a different country.
admin_1999_kuopio-county__337
Administrative court allows meal allowance tax exemption when employee cannot eat at usual place due to work location.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä oli, voiko työntekijällä olla kaksi varsinaista työpaikkaa samanaikaisesti.

X:n työnantajalla P Oy:llä on ollut verovuonna kiinteä toimipaikka sekä R:n että H:n kaupungeissa. X on työskennellyt vuoroviikoin R:n ja H:n toimipaikoissa. X on kulkenut H:n kaupungissa olevaan toimipisteeseen päivittäin R:n kaupungista. P Oy on maksanut näiltä matkoilta X:lle päivärahaa.

Verolautakunta ja tutkijalautakunta katsoivat, että X:lle maksetut päivärahat ovat hänen veronalaista tuloaan.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, ettei X:n työmatkoja H:n kaupunkiin voitu pitää tilapäisinä, vaan X:llä on ollut varsinainen työpaikka sekä R:n että H:n kaupungeissa. X:lle verovuonna maksetut päivärahat ovat siten hänen veronalaista tuloaan.

Verovuosi 1987.

TVL (1043/74) 22 § 1 mom 8 kohta ja 2 mom