Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 11.6.1996 377/7 AI generated

VAT deduction allowed for company car used partly in business and partly for private trips.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 11.6.1996 377/7
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court allowed the company to deduct input VAT on a hearse purchased for business use. The company argued the vehicle qualified for deduction under VAT Act sections 102 and 117, while the tax authority contended it was not a passenger car under section 114. The court ruled that the vehicle's mixed use permitted partial deduction based on business utilization.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Arvonlisäverolaki 102 §; 114 §; 117 §: A vehicle used partly for taxable business activities and partly for private purposes qualifies for partial input VAT deduction if it is not excluded by definition as a passenger car.

Keywords

AI generated
value added tax input tax deduction mixed use vehicle hearse classification business expenses

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Arvonlisäverolaki 102 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 114 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 117 §
AI generated
admin_1995_uusimaa-county__119
VAT deduction denied for private use of company car used for training and negotiations.
admin_1998_uusimaa-county__949
VAT deduction denied for family car used for private travel between home and business premises.
kho-precedent_2001_14
VAT refund claim dismissed as claimant failed to prove goods were used for taxable purposes.
admin_2015_northern-finland__337
Tax court allows travel expense deduction for spouse's car when taxpayer is deemed owner under tax law.
admin_2017_helsinki__294
Administrative court dismissed appeal on car tax, ruling historical tax share calculation based on official valuation was not erroneous.

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 oli hankkinut ruumisauton käytettäväksi verollisessa

liiketoiminnassaan. Lisäksi autoa tultiin käyttämään vastuunalaisen

yhtiömiehen kotimatkoihin. Katsottiin, että

ruumisauto ei ole arvonlisäverolain 114 §:ssä tarkoitettu

henkilöauto. Yhtiöllä oli oikeus vähentää ruumisauton hankinnasta

suorittamansa arvonlisävero lain 102 ja 117 §:n

mukaisesti siltä osin kuin autoa käytettiin yhtiön verollisessa

liiketoiminnassa.

ArvonlisäveroL 102 §

ArvonlisäveroL 114 §

ArvonlisäveroL 117 §

Ks. myös AutoveroL 21 § (1482/94) ja

A ajoneuvojen rakenteesta ja varusteista 18 § (1256/92)