Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 1.12.1998 575/2 AI generated

Tax court allows interest deduction for loan used to repay mortgage guarantee debt on primary residence.

Case Number Hämeen LO 1.12.1998 575/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court allowed the taxpayer's claim to deduct interest payments on a loan used to repay a bank guarantee debt. Although the loan was taken in 1992, the taxpayer had acquired the property as their permanent residence in April 1993 and argued the interest should be treated as housing loan interest. The court ruled that because the debt was not used for acquiring the home, the interest deduction was permitted only for the period after the residence status began.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tuloverolaki 58 §; The interest on a loan used to repay a guarantee debt is deductible as housing loan interest only if the debt was incurred for the acquisition of the permanent residence.

Keywords

AI generated
income tax interest deduction permanent residence status guarantee debt repayment housing loan interest mortgage guarantee liability

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tuloverolaki 58 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:n päätös 19.8.1999 taltionumero 2034
KHO:n päätös 19.8.1999 taltionumero 2034.
AI generated
kho-precedent_1999_39
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding interest deduction for construction debt not yet used as residence.
admin_1996_hame-county__8
Finland's Supreme Administrative Court allowed interest deduction for a home loan where the house was sold before occupancy.
admin_1996_kuopio-county__751
Administrative court dismissed tax claim for extra interest deduction due to lack of qualifying mortgage debt at year-end.
kho-precedent_2000_3
Court dismissed tax deduction claim for mortgage on property bought for investment purposes by elderly parents.
admin_1988_uusimaa-county__523
Court rules that selling shares in a property company constitutes business income when done regularly.

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

KHO on kumonnut lääninoikeuden päätöksen. KHO:n päätöksen viitetiedot näkyvät ennakkotapauksen lopussa.

Verovelvollinen on omistanut huoneiston hallintaan oikeuttavat osakkeet vuodesta 1983 alkaen. Verotusasiakirjojen mukaan hänellä on ollut vuoden 1990 päättyessä velkaa vain 3 318 markkaa. Puheena oleva huoneisto on ollut verovelvollisen vakituisena asuntona vasta 1.4.1993 alkaen. Huoneiston hallintaan oikeuttavat osakkeet ovat jossakin vaiheessa joutuneet verovelvollisen takausvastuun pantiksi pankille. Saadakseen osakkeet pantinhaltijalta takaisin verovelvollinen on nostanut vuonna 1992 pankista 230 000 markan lainan ja maksanut sillä takausvastuitaan.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että 230 000 markan laina ja verovelvollisen siitä vuosina 1993-1995 maksamat korot kohdistuvat hänen takausvelkoihinsa. Koska verovelvollinen kuitenkin on ottanut puheena olevan huoneiston omaksi vakituiseksi asunnokseen 1.4.1993 lukien, hänellä on oikeus vähentää mainitusta lainasta vuosina 1993-1995 maksamansa korot asuntovelan korkoina.

Tuloverolaki 58 §

KHO:n päätös 19.8.1999 taltionumero 2034. Lääninoikeuden päätös kumottu, koska velkaa ei ollut käytetty asunnon hankkimiseen.