Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HAO 07.11.2017 17/1004/1 AI generated

VAT Court rules that installing window treatments is not construction work under VAT Act s. 31(3)(1).

Case Number Helsingin HAO 07.11.2017 17/1004/1
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 preliminary ruling request regarding the classification of installing window treatments and blinds. The applicant argued these services constituted construction work under the VAT Act, while the opposing party contended they were distinct services. The court decided that such installations do not qualify as construction or repair work under the specific statutory provision, thereby excluding them from that VAT category.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Arvonlisäverolaki 2 § 1 mom, 8 c § 1 mom, 28 § ja 31 § 3 mom 1 kohta; The installation of window treatments and blinds is not considered construction or repair work on a building under the VAT Act.

Keywords

AI generated
Value Added Tax construction work definition window treatment installation VAT Act section 31 preliminary ruling request

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Arvonlisäverolaki 2 § 1 mom
Arvonlisäverolaki 2 § 1 mom, 8 c § 1 mom, 28 § ja 31 § 3 mom 1 kohta
Arvonlisäverolaki 8 c § 1 mom
Arvonlisäverolaki 28 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 31 § 3 mom 1 kohta
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 Article 13b
AI generated
kho-other_2015_3834
Appeal dismissed; connection exemption requires health/environmental safety, not just financial hardship.
kho-precedent_2015_143
Supreme Administrative Court requires leave for appeal on non-compulsory building enforcement decisions under Construction Act. Verdict: dismissed. Leave denied.
kho-precedent_2013_30
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal; home municipality determines tax status over actual usage duration.
admin_2009_turku__408
Building permit granted where construction stayed within agreed land use rights despite one owner's opposition.
kho-precedent_2016_120
Supreme Administrative Court allows VAT on parking surveillance fees as a service provided to the property owner.

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

Ennakkoratkaisuhakemuksessa kuvattua verhotankojen, verhokiskojen, sälekaihtimien, kierrekaihtimien, auringon häikäisysuojakaihtimien, markiisien ja lamellien asentamista ei ollut pidettävä arvonlisäverolain 31 §:n 3 momentin 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuna kiinteistöön kohdistuvana rakennus- tai korjaustyönä, eikä kysymys siten ollut mainitussa lainkohdassa tarkoitetusta rakentamispalvelusta.

Ennakkoratkaisu on annettu ajalle 2.6.2017 - 31.12.2018.

Arvonlisäverolaki 2 § 1 mom, 8 c § 1 mom, 28 § ja 31 § 3 mom 1 kohta

Yhteisestä arvonlisäverojärjestelmästä annetun direktiivin 2006/112/EY täytäntöönpanotoimenpiteistä annettu neuvoston täytäntöönpanoasetus (EU) n:o 282/2011 13 b artikla

Asian ovat ratkaisseet hallinto-oikeuden jäsenet Juha Rautiainen, Pirjo Järvenpää ja Tero Leskinen (t).

Asian esittelijä Mikko Äijälä.

KHO 23.5.2018 2512/2018. Valituslupahakemus hylätään.