Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:106 AI generated

Court ruled that unsupervised work without agreed hours constitutes remuneration, not deductible advance payment.

Case Number KHO:1997:106
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the tax authority's claim that payments made to the contractor were deductible advance payments. The court found that the contractor worked without the client's supervision and without agreed working hours, which negated the conditions for advance payment status. Consequently, the payments were classified as remuneration subject to withholding tax, contrary to the tax authority's argument.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ennakkoperintälaki 4 §; 6 §: When work is performed without the employer's supervision and without agreed working hours, the payment constitutes remuneration rather than deductible advance payment.

Keywords

AI generated
advance payment deduction remuneration classification unsupervised work working hours agreement withholding tax obligation contractor status tax authority claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ennakkoperintälaki 4 §
Ennakkoperintälaki 6 §
AI generated
labour_1987_39
Labor court allows collective agreement clause permitting new construction electrical work as contract work without employer consent.
labour_2001_35
Labor court ruled a security guard on service fee was in an employment relationship entitled to vacation pay.
labour_2010_60
Labor court dismissed union claim that subcontractor violated collective agreement by using workers under its supervision.
labour_1982_119
Labor court dismissed union claim for compensation, ruling pipe replacement work must be paid as contract work.
labour_2004_6
Labour court dismissed union claim for breach of collective agreement regarding subcontractor work valuation.

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

Metsuri A oli perustanut metsätyöpalveluyrityksen, jonka toimialana olivat metsänhoitotyöt ja turvetyöt. A oli merkitty ennakkoperintärekisteriin ja arvonlisäverovelvolliseksi. Hän huolehti omasta vakuutusturvastaan ja oli hankkinut alalla tarpeellisia työkaluja ja kalustoa. A oli tehnyt maanviljelijä X:n kanssa urakkasopimuksen metsän harvennuksesta ja ojalinjojen aukaisusta moottorisahaa käyttäen sekä puun teosta puutavaran määrään perustuvan urakkahinnan mukaan. Työajasta ja lomakorvauksesta ei ollut sovittu. A suoritti tehtävät ilman X:n työnjohtoa ja valvontaa. Noissa oloissa X:n A:lle suorittamia palkkiota ei pidetty työsuhteessa saatuna ennakkoperintälain 4 §:n tarkoittamana palkkana vaan saman lain 6 §:n tarkoittamana toiselle tehdystä työstä maksettuna korvauksena, josta ennakonpidätystä ei ole toimitettava, jos suorituksen saaja on merkitty ennakkoperintärekisteriin. Verovuosi_1996.

EnnakkoperintäL 4 §

EnnakkoperintäL 6 §