Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 21.11.1996 612/2 AI generated

Court denies mortgage interest deduction for vacation home sale profit as it is not a prior loan cost.

Case Number Hämeen LO 21.11.1996 612/2
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 taxpayers' request to deduct mortgage interest from their capital gains on a vacation home sale. The spouses sold the property for a profit but failed to deduct interest payments from 1988 to 1992 in previous tax years. The court ruled that these interest payments do not qualify as acquisition costs for the specific purpose of the sale and therefore cannot be offset against the gain.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tuloverolaki 46 § 1 mom; Interest payments on a loan taken for acquiring a vacation home are not deductible from the capital gain on the sale of that home if they were not previously recognized as acquisition costs.

Keywords

AI generated
capital gains tax vacation home sale mortgage interest deduction acquisition cost definition tax loss carryforward

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tuloverolaki 46 § 1 mom
AI generated
admin_1995_mikkeli-county__274
Administrative court allows interest deduction for family home used as primary residence by spouses.
admin_2011_vaasa__539
Administrative court allows tax treatment of property transfer as capital gain rather than business income due to long-term rental history.
admin_1990_hame-county__167
Family with two homes on same town has one home as tax residence if other is insufficient.
kho-precedent_2000_72
Court allows deduction of mortgage interest but denies travel expenses for weekends between home and work.
kho-precedent_2012_62
Sale of land with demolished former home qualifies for capital gains tax exemption if no new dwelling exists. Verdict: allowed.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä oli, voidaanko vapaa-ajan asunnon myyntivoitosta vähentää mainitun asunnon hankintaa varten otetun lainan korot useammalta vuodelta siltä osin kuin niitä ei ole hyväksytty vähennykseksi niin sanottuina muina korkoina.

Puolisot X ja Y ovat myyneet verovuonna vapaa-ajan asuntonsa 395 000 markalla. Kaupasta on syntynyt X:lle 54 671 markan ja Y:lle 91 118 markan luovutusvoitto. X ja Y ovat ottaneet myydyn asunnon ostoon lainaa 200 000 markkaa. Lainasta maksettuja korkoja on jäänyt vuosien 1988-1992 verotuksissa hyväksymättä vähennykseksi 74 831 markkaa.

Säännönmukaisessa verotuksessa ja oikaisulautakunnassa ei verotuksessa vähentämättä jääneitä korkoja ole hyväksytty vähennykseksi luovutusvoitosta.

Lääninoikeus katsoo, ettei puheena olevia korkoja lueta vapaa-ajan asunnon hankintamenoon eikä niitä muutoinkaan voida vähentää X:n ja Y:n luovutusvoitosta.

Verovuosi 1993.

Äänestys 2-1.

Tuloverolaki 46 § 1 mom

Andersson: Pääomatulon verotus 2. p. s. 73

KHO:n päätös 6.10.1997 taltionumero 2477. Ei muutoksenhakulupaa.