Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 12.6.1998 485/7 AI generated

VAT deduction denied for fish seed purchase as it was not for taxable business activity.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 12.6.1998 485/7
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 claim for VAT deduction on fish seed and equipment purchases. The taxpayer argued these acquisitions were for business purposes, while the County Administrative Board determined the purchases were for non-taxable activities on a specific fishing zone. The court upheld the Board's decision because the purchases did not meet the statutory requirements for deducting input VAT in this context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Arvonlisäverolaki 1 §; Arvonlisäverolaki 29 § 2 kohta: Input VAT deduction is not permitted for acquisitions made for non-taxable business activities or activities outside the scope of the VAT system.

Keywords

AI generated
value added tax input tax deduction fishing zone taxable activity County Administrative Board fish seed purchase VAT system scope

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Arvonlisäverolaki 1 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 29 § 2 kohta
Arvonlisäverolaki 102 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_2012_52
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal regarding modification of fishing obligation on fishing area under Water Act.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2022:26
Supreme Court dismisses fishing charge against Sami locals due to constitutional conflict with fishing regulations.
appeal_1981_eastern-finland__1786
Court dismisses appeal against fishing ban ruling, upholding confiscation of illegal gear.
admin_1990_water-superior__154
Finnish court held that fish passage installation is not fishing under the Fishing Act.
kko-precedent_1990_143
Supreme Court allows fishing district standing as private prosecutor when general fishing interest is infringed.

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

Kalastusalue, jolla kalastuslain 64 §:n 2 momentissa tarkoitetun

selvittelysopimuksen mukaan oli oikeus myydä sopimuksella

mainituilla vesialueilla kalastuslupia, oli ostanut

kalanpoikasia istutuksia varten sekä kalojen merkitsemistyötä

ja verkkoa. Arvonlisäverolain 29 §:n 2 kohdan

(1218/94) mukaan kalastusoikeuden myynnistä suoritetaan

arvonlisäveroa. Lääninoikeus katsoi, että hankinnat olivat

tapahtuneet kalastusalueen harjoittamaa arvonlisäverollista

toimintaa varten ja sillä oli näin ollen oikeus vähentää

hankintoihin sisältyvät verot. Maksuunpanot 8, 10 ja

12/1995.

ArvonlisäveroL 1 §

ArvonlisäveroL 29 § 2 kohta

ArvonlisäveroL 102 §