Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:141 AI generated

VAT deduction denied for canteen equipment as it was not used for taxable supplies.

Case Number KHO:1997:141
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 company's appeal regarding its inability to deduct VAT on canteen equipment. The company operated a taxable transport and logistics business and purchased kitchen machinery and fixtures for its staff canteen, which was managed by an external caterer. The court ruled that since the canteen was not used for the company's taxable transport activities but solely for staff welfare, the equipment did not meet the requirements for VAT deduction under the relevant sections of the Value Added Tax Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Arvonlisäverolaki 102 §; Arvonlisäverolaki 114 §: VAT deduction is not permitted for assets used exclusively for non-taxable activities or welfare purposes unrelated to the taxpayer's taxable economic operations.

Keywords

AI generated
value added tax input tax deduction staff canteen taxable supplies welfare facilities VAT Act business assets

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Arvonlisäverolaki 102 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 114 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_2001_49
Employer must pay VAT on staff canteen meals as own use, not sales, when no cash compensation is charged.
admin_2010_hameenlinna__502
Shareholder's VAT avoidance via company purchase deemed hidden dividend under tax procedure law.
kho-precedent_2011_76
VAT deduction denied for forestry land sales services due to lack of direct link to exempt transaction.
admin_1995_uusimaa-county__8
Court ruled that selling travel documents and stamps constitutes VAT taxable service under Finnish law.
kho-precedent_2001_45
Supreme Administrative Court allows VAT deduction for group members on property sale costs if properties were used in taxable business.

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

Yhtiö harjoitti verollista kuljetus-, ahtaus- ja huolintatoimintaa. Yhtiöllä oli henkilökuntansa työssäoloaikana tapahtuvaa ruokailua varten henkilöstöravintola, jonka se oli antanut ulkopuolisen ruokalanpitäjän hoidettavaksi. Ruokalanpitäjä suoritti henkilöstöravintolaa varten tapahtuvat ruoka-aineostot sekä yhtiön henkilökunnalle tapahtuvan ruoan valmistuksen ja tarjoilun omalla henkilökunnallaan. Yhtiön henkilökunta maksoi ateriat suoraan ruokalanpitäjälle. Yhtiö hankki itse henkilöstöravintolan keittiöön ruoan valmistuksessa käytettäviä koneita ja laitteita sekä kalusteita ja astioita.

ArvonlisäveroL 102 §

ArvonlisäveroL 114 §