Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 13.11.1995 922/2 AI generated

Court allows tax authority to collect advance tax from spouse acting as sole shareholder director.

Case Number Hämeen LO 13.11.1995 922/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of the Hamina County overturned the tax authority's decision to exclude a shareholder from the advance tax register. The court found that the shareholder's spouse, who had been the sole director, had negligently failed to pay taxes while conducting business similar to the company's intended activities. Consequently, the court ruled that the company's application could not be rejected based on the shareholder's separate residence declaration, thereby permitting the tax authority to proceed with the advance tax collection.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

EnnakkoperintäL 6 a §; EnnakkoperintäL 6 b §: The tax authority may collect advance taxes from a spouse acting as the sole director of a company if the spouse negligently failed to pay taxes while conducting similar business, even if the shareholder declares separate residence.

Keywords

AI generated
advance tax collection spousal liability sole director negligence tax register exclusion administrative court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
EnnakkoperintäL 6 a §
EnnakkoperintäL 6 b §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös 14.8.1996 taltionumero 2476
KHO:n päätös 14.8.1996 taltionumero 2476.
AI generated
admin_1996_northern-karelia-county__130
Administrative court quiesced tax authority's decision for failing to sufficiently substantiate grounds under procedural law.
admin_2014_helsinki__396
VAT company removed from register for failing to provide address despite repeated requests under VAT Act.
kko-precedent_2004_88
Supreme Court allows appeal against false director registration where consent exists despite actual control by another.
kko-other_1998_3957
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where defendant knowingly registered capital as paid in companies established for tax evasion.
market_2019_153
Market Court dismisses appeal against trademark refusal, finding no confusion or bad faith for H-DFI vs H-D.

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

Lääninverovirasto oli jättänyt ennakkoperintärekisteriin merkitsemättä osakeyhtiön, jonka hallituksen ainoan jäsenen A:n puoliso B oli aiemmin olennaisesti laiminlyönnyt veronmaksunsa harjoittaessaan samanlaista toimintaa kuin yhtiön oli tarkoitus harjoittaa.

A oli ilmoittanut asuvansa erillään puolisostaan avioliittolain mukaisen harkinta-ajan alettua 17.5.1995. Lääninveroviraston valituksenalainen päätös oli annettu 3.7.1995.

Lääninoikeus katsoi A:n lähinnä johtavan yhtiön toimintaa sekä kumosi lääninveroviraston päätöksen ja palautti asian lääninverovirastolle uudelleen käsiteltäväksi, koska osakeyhtiön hakemusta ei voitu mainitulla perusteella hylätä.

Äänestys 2-1.

EnnakkoperintäL 6 a §

EnnakkoperintäL 6 b §

KHO:n päätös 14.8.1996 taltionumero 2476. Ei muutoksenhakulupaa.