Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 26.7.1994 1080/2 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed tax deduction claims for disability support and maintenance payments.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 26.7.1994 1080/2
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 taxpayer's request to exempt disability support payments and reduce maintenance payments from taxable income for the 1991 tax year. The court determined that the disability support was taxable income under the Income and Wealth Tax Act as no exemption existed, while maintenance payments were deemed non-deductible living expenses. Consequently, the taxpayer could not claim these amounts as tax-free income or deductible expenses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

TVL 43 § (1240/88); TVL 81 § 1 mom (1240/88); TVL 85 § 1 mom (1240/88): Disability support payments constitute taxable income unless explicitly exempted, and maintenance payments are non-deductible living expenses.

Keywords

AI generated
Income and Wealth Tax Act disability support payments maintenance payments taxable income non-deductible expenses tax exemption living expenses

Cited Legislation

AI generated
TVL 43 § (1240/88)
TVL 81 § 1 mom (1240/88)
TVL 81 § 1 mom (1240/88)
TVL 85 § 1 mom (1240/88)
TVL 85 § 1 mom (1240/88)
AI generated
insurance_1999_5607-1997
Insurance court ruled second full-time job counts as part-time work under unemployment insurance law.
admin_2003_kuopio__520
Administrative court dismissed tax deduction for increased living costs as work site was deemed primary workplace.
admin_2001_turku__316
Administrative court denies meal allowance deduction for mobile asphalt workers lacking permanent site.
admin_1991_turku-and-pori-county__637
Daily commute costs for special industry workers are deductible expenses under TVL 25 § 1.
admin_2007_kuopio__283
Finnish court upheld tax advance rules for employer-paid internet costs covering private use.

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

H:n kaupungin vaihetyökeskus oli maksanut kehitysvammaiselle

X:lle työosuusrahaa 3 652 markkaa vuodelta 1991 ja X oli

maksanut vaihetyökeskukselle ylläpitorahaa. X vaati työosuusrahan

katsomista verovapaaksi ja ylläpitorahan vähentämistä

tulon hankkimisesta tai säilyttämisestä johtuneena menona.

Tulo- ja varallisuusverolain mukaan veronalaista tuloa ovat

rahana tai rahanarvoisena etuutena saadut tulot, ellei veronalaisuudesta

ole toisin säädetty. Kehitysvammaisten erityishuollosta

annetun lain (519/77) mukaisesta työtoiminnasta

maksetun työosuusrahan osalta ei ollut säädetty, että

se ei olisi veronalaista tuloa. Työosuusraha oli näin ollen

X:n veronalaista tuloa.

Ruokailumenojen perusteella vaihetyökeskukselle maksettu

ylläpitoraha katsottiin elantokustannuksena verotuksessa

vähennyskelvottomaksi menoksi. Verovuosi 1991.

TVL 43 § (1240/88)

TVL 81 § 1 mom (1240/88)

TVL 85 § 1 mom (1240/88)