Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion LO 18.10.1994 825 AI generated

Mixed-use building depreciation rate determined by comparing structure to retail or storage building rather than office building.

Case Number Kuopion LO 18.10.1994 825
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The County Administrative Court ruled that a building partially used as a restaurant and partially as a retail store should be depreciated like a retail or storage building, not an office building. The company claimed a 9% depreciation rate, while the tax authority initially assigned it a 6% rate based on office building comparisons. The court rejected the office building analogy and allowed the higher 9% rate, aligning the depreciation with the building's actual retail and storage functions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

EVL 34 § 2 mom 1 kohta; When a building serves mixed commercial purposes including retail or storage, its depreciation rate must be determined by comparing it to similar retail or storage structures rather than office buildings.

Keywords

AI generated
building depreciation rate mixed-use commercial property retail versus office classification tax authority depreciation mixed-use structure assessment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
EVL 34 § 2 mom 1 kohta
AI generated
admin_1995_northern-karelia-county__32
Court dismissed appeal; vacant 1967 house taxed at general rate, not reduced rate for permanent residence.
admin_1995_turku-and-pori-county__472
Administrative court dismissed tax assessment appeal regarding separate valuation of industrial and residential building parts.
admin_2014_turku__618
Sale of residence on farm triggers 20% penalty under Inheritance and Gift Tax Act s. 55(6).
admin_1997_northern-karelia-county__102
Administrative court dismissed property tax appeal where company bought back buildings for demolition, ruling cultural heritage protection did not apply to tax assessment.
admin_2004_turku__255
Administrative court dismissed appeal; property tax value increase based on building type change is valid even if exceeding 30% limit.

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

Oliko osittain ravintolakäytössä ja osittain myymälänä toimiva

rakennus poistoprosentin suuruutta vahvistettaessa rinnastettava

asuin- ja toimistorakennukseen vai myymälä-,

varasto- tms. rakennukseen.

Yhtiö omisti kantavilta rakenteiltaan puisen rakennuksen,

josta 2/3 oli vuokrattu käytettäväksi ravintolana ja 1/3

urheiluvälineliikkeelle. Yhtiö vaati veroilmoituksessaan

rakennuksen poiston tehtäväksi 9 %:n suuruisena.

Verolautakunta katsoi rakennuksen asuin- ja toimistorakennuksiin

verrattavaksi ja vahvisti poistoprosentiksi 6.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että kyseinen rakennus on verrattavissa

puiseen myymälä-, varasto- tms. rakennukseen. Sen verovuoden

poisto voi siten olla yhtiön vaatimat 9 % poistamattomasta

hankintahinnasta.

EVL 34 § 2 mom 1 kohta