Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 7.4.2000 00/0227/1 AI generated

VAT ruling clarifies that interest payments are not construction services and thus not taxable.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 7.4.2000 00/0227/1
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Finnish Administrative Court ruled that interest payments made by a client to a financier are not considered construction services under VAT law. The court determined that while financing arrangements are part of construction services, the subsequent repayment of interest constitutes a separate debt obligation rather than a service fee. Consequently, these interest costs cannot be included in the taxable base for Value Added Tax.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Arvonlisäverolaki 17 §; Arvonlisäverolaki 18 §: Interest payments made by a client to a financier are not considered construction services and therefore do not constitute a taxable supply of services.

Keywords

AI generated
Value Added Tax construction services interest payments taxable base financing arrangements VAT exemption service definition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Arvonlisäverolaki 17 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 18 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 41 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 73 § 1 mom
Arvonlisäverolaki 73 § 1 mom

Cited Case Law

AI generated
EYTI C-2/95
Ks. EYTI C-2/95 ja C-349/96
EYTI C-349/96
AI generated
kho-precedent_2002_57
Supreme Administrative Court allows transfer tax exemption for apartment share payments made at building completion.
admin_2016_helsinki__238
Administrative court dismissed appeal against property tax assessment based on permanent residence building rate.
admin_1999_uusimaa-county__3
VAT court dismissed claim that indirect construction costs are deductible input tax base items.
kho-precedent_1998_45
VAT refund claim dismissed as claimant failed to prove goods were exported for non-EU use.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2020:105
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; tax assessment upheld absent evidence of market value increase above purchase price.

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

Rakennuskohteen rahoituksen järjestäminen toimeksiantajan

nimiin ja maksuliikkeen hoitaminen tämän puolesta rakennusvaiheen

aikana ovat arvonlisäverolliseen rakennuttamispalveluun

kuuluvia palveluja eivätkä erillistä rahoituspalvelun

myyntiä.

Rahoittajille maksettujen korkojen tai muiden rahoituskulujen

edelleenveloitukset toimeksiantajalta eivät kuitenkaan

ole rakennuttamispalvelun suorittamisesta veloitettuja

korvauksia, joten niitä ei ole luettava veron perusteeseen.

Ennakkoratkaisu ajalle 1.10.1999-31.12.2000.

Ks. EYTI C-2/95 ja C-349/96

Arvonlisäverolaki 17 §

Arvonlisäverolaki 18 §

Arvonlisäverolaki 41 §

Arvonlisäverolaki 73 § 1 mom

KHO:n päätös 3.12.2001 taltionumero 3016. Ei muutoksenhaku-

lupaa.