Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HAO 29.6.2007 07/0425/3 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed tax penalties for employee due to employer's good faith reliance on approved practice.

Case Number Turun HAO 29.6.2007 07/0425/3
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Turku dismissed tax penalties imposed on an employee for meal reimbursements that technically failed to meet tax exemption criteria. Although the employer acted in good faith following an approved practice, the court ruled that the employee's trust in the employer's conduct was protected. Consequently, the penalties were overturned despite the strict legal requirements for the exemptions not being met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tuloverolaki 71 § 1 mom; Tuloverolaki 71 § 2 mom; Tuloverolaki 72 §; Laki verotusmenettelystä 26 § 2 mom; Laki verotusmenettelystä 57 § (1558/1995): Where an employer acts in good faith according to an approved practice, the employee's reliance on this conduct may justify the dismissal of tax penalties even if statutory exemption conditions are not strictly fulfilled.

Keywords

AI generated
good faith reliance meal reimbursements tax exemption criteria employee protection administrative penalty approved practice verotusmenettelylaki

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tuloverolaki 71 § 1 mom
Tuloverolaki 71 § 2 mom
Tuloverolaki 72 §
Laki verotusmenettelystä 26 § 2 mom
Laki verotusmenettelystä 26 § 2 mom
Laki verotusmenettelystä 57 § (1558/1995)
Laki verotusmenettelystä 57 § (1558/1995)
AI generated
admin_2001_turku__677
Administrative court allows manager to deduct meal allowance excess as living expenses.
admin_2002_hameenlinna__103
Tax authority decision dismissed for procedural error in failing to verify meal allowance payment before tax deduction adjustment.
kho-precedent_2009_20
Supreme Administrative Court allows tax assessment for employer's good faith error in tax-exempt travel reimbursement interpretation.
kho-precedent_2001_49
Employer must pay VAT on staff canteen meals as own use, not sales, when no cash compensation is charged.
kho-precedent_2003_67
Court dismissed deduction for meals over 6 hours but under 10 hours as no special industry conditions existed.

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 oli ennakkoperintäasiassa katsonut, että työnantaja oli ateriakorvauksia maksaessaan toiminut tulkinnanvaraisessa asiassa vilpittömässä mielessä viranomaisen hyväksymän käytännön mukaisesti. Vaikka ateriakorvaukset eivät täyttäneet verovapauden edellytyksiä, maksuunpanot oli kumottu.

Työntekijää oli jälkiverotettu ateriakorvauksista. Hallinto-oikeus katsoi, että työnantajalle myönnetty luottamuksensuoja ulottui myös työntekijään, koska ei erityisistä syistä muuta johtunut. Jälkiverotukset kumottiin, vaikka niiden edellytykset sinänsä täyttyivät.

Tuloverolaki 71 § 1 mom

Tuloverolaki 71 § 2 mom

Tuloverolaki 72 §

Laki verotusmenettelystä 26 § 2 mom

Laki verotusmenettelystä 57 § (1558/1995)