Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 3.4.1991 390/3 AI generated

Administrative court allows tax deduction for agricultural assets despite temporary farming cessation due to pension commitment.

Case Number Hämeen LO 3.4.1991 390/3
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The administrative court partially allowed the taxpayer's claim to deduct agricultural assets from income tax despite a six-year commitment to cease farming activities. The court found that while the permanent cessation of farming was not met, the right to deduct specific assets remained valid. Consequently, the tax assessment was overturned and remanded for recalculation based on the limited scope of deductible expenses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

MaatVL 4 §; MaatVL 8 §: A temporary commitment to cease agricultural production does not extinguish the right to deduct the value of agricultural assets, provided the cessation is not permanent.

Keywords

AI generated
agricultural asset deduction temporary farming cessation pension commitment income tax assessment administrative review MaatVL provisions remand for recalculation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
MaatVL 4 §
MaatVL 8 §
MaatVL 9 §
MaatVL 10 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_1998_40
Rental income from land leased by a farmer with a surrender pension is agricultural income, not capital income.
admin_1998_uusimaa-county__459
VAT deduction for agricultural investments allowed despite prior contract to cease farming production.
admin_1997_uusimaa-county__535
Tax court denies agricultural deductions when taxpayer formally relinquished farming for six years.
admin_1984_uusimaa-county__2365
Tax court allows deduction of 400 marks for farm office expenses due to missing audit report.
admin_1989_hame-county__106
Court allows agricultural loss deduction for hobby farm when farming is conducted with regular income-gathering purpose.

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 ja hänen puolisonsa B ovat 21.11.1986 sitoutuneet maataloustuotannosta luopumiseen ja pellon myyntirajoitukseen siten, että he eivät käytä eivätkä vuokraa maatilan peltoa eikä talousrakennuksia maataloustuotantoon kuuden vuoden aikana.

Koska maatalouden harjoittamista ei luopumiseläkkeen saamisen johdosta ole pysyvästi lopetettu, lääninoikeus katsoi, että A:lla on säilynyt oikeus käyttöomaisuuspoistojen tekemiseen. Sen sijaan maatalouden vuosikulut A:lla on oikeus vähentää vain siltä osin kuin ne kohdistuvat edellä mainittuun poistokelpoiseen käyttöomaisuuteen.

Verotus kumottiin ja asia palautettiin uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.

Luopumiseläke 16/74

MaatVL 4 §

MaatVL 8 §

MaatVL 9 §

MaatVL 10 §