Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 28.2.1992 285/5 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed tax penalty for car purchase from employer as benefit-in-kind not proven.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 28.2.1992 285/5
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 tax authority's penalty against a former employee who purchased a company car from his employer. The tax office argued the purchase price was below market value and constituted a taxable benefit, while the taxpayer claimed the price was fair. The court found no evidence that the purchase price differed from the car's market value, thus rejecting the claim of a hidden benefit.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 19 § 1 mom; VerotusL 77 §, 83 §: A tax penalty for a benefit-in-kind arising from a vehicle purchase from an employer is only valid if the purchase price is demonstrably lower than the market value.

Keywords

AI generated
benefit-in-kind taxation employer vehicle purchase market value assessment tax penalty dismissal employment benefit rules

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 19 § 1 mom
TVL 19 § 1 mom (1043/74)
VerotusL 77 §
VerotusL 83 §
AI generated
appeal_1986_vaasa__2450
Court denies appeal against penalty clause enforcement in land sale contract for employee housing.
insurance_1984_2096-1982
Work injury claim allowed when employee deviated slightly from route for food during commute.
insurance_1998_8725-1997
Insurance court denied unemployment benefits when employer bonus was prorated to cover the employment termination period.
admin_2003_helsinki__268
Administrative court dismissed tax deduction claim for travel expenses as they were not incurred for official duties.
admin_1992_vaasa-county__418
Finnish tax court rules that installment payments in a generational farm sale count as received at contract signing for income timing.

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

Yhtiö X:ssä toimitetussa ennakontarkastuksessa oli todettu,

että valittaja, joka oli ollut 30.6.1988 asti yhtiön palveluksessa,

oli ostanut yhtiöltä 15.7.1988 entisen työsuhdeautonsa

38 387 markan hinnasta. Ennakontarkastajat katsoivat,

että auton kauppahinta oli auton käypää hintaa alhaisempi.

Valittajan tuloon lisättiin tällä perusteella jälkiverotuksin

6 500 markkaa ja hänelle määrättiin tuon tulon

osalta 10 prosentin veronkorotus.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että valittaja oli autoa ostaessaan

saanut entiseltä työnantajaltaan auton käyvän hinnan ja

ostohinnan välisen rahanarvoisen etuuden, joka oli lisättävä

hänen tuloonsa. Jälkiverotus veronkorotuksineen pysytettiin.

Verovuosi 1988.

TVL 19 § 1 mom (1043/74)

VerotusL 77 §

VerotusL 83 §