Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VakO 7.3.1984/4738:82 AI generated

Court denied farmer's succession allowance as half of income came from farming activities.

Case Number VakO 7.3.1984/4738:82
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Insurance Court dismissed the farmer's claim for a generational change allowance because the court found farming constituted at least half of their total income. The court calculated net income from farming and forestry, adjusted for personal use and timber sales, then split this amount to compare against external employment earnings. Consequently, the allowance was rejected since the statutory requirement regarding the proportion of income from farming was not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 10 of the Act on the Payment of Generational Change Allowances; The generational change allowance is not payable if the applicant derives at least half of their total income from farming or forestry activities.

Keywords

AI generated
generational change allowance farming income threshold succession benefit denial agricultural activity assessment income proportion test

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 10 of the Act on the Payment of Generational Change Allowances
AI generated
insurance_1980_1173-1979
Insurance court denied generational change pension as teacher income was not primarily from farming.
admin_1988_uusimaa-county__61
Family court allocates 70% to 30% of farm income between spouses based on work contribution.
kho-precedent_1998_40
Rental income from land leased by a farmer with a surrender pension is agricultural income, not capital income.
kko-precedent_1993_155
Supreme Court allows partial exemption from enforcement of agricultural subsidies under Section 8a of the Enforcement Act.
insurance_1984_4346-1982
Insurance court denied succession allowance due to insufficient agricultural income reliance over five years.

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

Viljelijän ei katsottu saaneen maatalousyrittäjätoiminnasta ainakin puolta toimeentulostaan ja sukupolvenvaihdoseläke evättiin. Maatilatalouden tuloja arvioitaessa otettiin huomioon maatilatalouden ja metsätalouden puhdas tulo, poistot, oma käyttö, puunmyynti ja suoritetut pinta-alalisät. Näin saatu tulo jaettiin, huomioon ottaen viljelijän tilan ulkopuolisen työskentelyn, puoleksi kummallekin. Täten arvioitua tuloa verrattiin tilan ulkopuolisesta työskentelystä saatujen ansiotulojen nettomäärään vuosittain. VI -jaosto