Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 10.10.2013 13/0976/6 AI generated

Administrative court dismisses appeal regarding pension income supplementary tax rule conflicting with non-discrimination principles.

Case Number Helsingin HAO 10.10.2013 13/0976/6
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland dismissed the applicant's appeal challenging a pension income supplementary tax provision for apparent conflicts with constitutional non-discrimination rules. The applicant argued that applying the tax rule violated the Constitution and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by creating age-based discrimination. The court held that the legislative measure was justified and did not constitute unlawful discrimination under the cited legal frameworks.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Suomen perustuslain 6 § 1 ja 2 mom; 106 §; Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirja 51 artikla; Tuloverolaki 124 § 1 ja 4 mom: A tax provision based on pension income does not violate constitutional or EU non-discrimination principles if the distinction is objectively justified and proportionate.

Keywords

AI generated
pension income supplementary tax age-based discrimination constitutional non-discrimination EU Charter of Fundamental Rights administrative tax appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution of Finland
Section 106 of the Constitution of Finland
Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Section 1, paragraph 1 of the Inheritance Tax Act
Suomen perustuslaki 6 § 1 ja 2 mom ja 106 §
Section 3, paragraph 1 of the Inheritance Tax Act
Section 1 and paragraph 4, item 4 of Section 124 of the Income Tax Act (785/2012)
Suomen perustuslaki 6 § 1 ja 2 mom ja 106 §
AI generated
kko-precedent_1995_88
Supreme Court allows appeal to adjust inheritance division when property value increases significantly after advance inheritance.
admin_1996_central-finland-county__163
Inheritance tax appeal dismissed because heir was present at will and no separate hearing was required.
kho-precedent_1997_147
VAT input tax deduction denied for business use of private residence without separate accounting.
admin_1989_hame-county__4
Precedent binding only if tax law unchanged; new law overrides prior advisory decision without transition rules.
admin_2015_helsinki__1775
Tax court dismissed appeal regarding inheritance tax deduction for foreign inheritance received by resident.

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

Kysymys oli siitä, johtaako eläketulon lisäveroa koskevan tuloverolain 124 §:n 4 momentin säännöksen soveltaminen A:n ennakkoperinnässä ilmeiseen ristiriitaan Suomen perustuslain ja Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan ikään perustuvan syrjinnän kiellon kanssa ja tuliko säännös sen vuoksi jättää soveltamatta Suomen perustuslain 106 §:n nojalla.

Suomen perustuslaki 6 § 1 ja 2 mom ja 106 §

Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirja 51 artikla

Tuloverolaki 124 § 1 ja 4 mom (785/2012)

Ennakkoperintälaki 1 § 1 mom ja 3 § 1 mom

Asian ovat ratkaisseet hallinto-oikeuden jäsenet Eija Rosendahl, Mika Hämäläinen (t) ja Johanna Kähärä.

Asian esittelijä Annina Nieminen.

Haettu muutosta