Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:8 AI generated

Insurance compensation for a burnt farm building cannot be added to agricultural income if the right to receive it is not yet established.

Case Number KHO:1997:8
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 farmer's appeal regarding the inclusion of insurance compensation in the 1991 agricultural income tax. The farmer had received a final court order requiring the insurance company to pay for the rebuilt farm building, but neither party had agreed on the specific construction costs, preventing the start of rebuilding. The court ruled that since the farmer did not possess an uncontested right to the full compensation amount for that tax year, the sum could not be added to taxable income. Consequently, the tax authority's assessment was upheld because the compensation was not yet a definitive asset of the farmer.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Maatalousvero 4 §; Maatalousvero 5 § 1 mom 2 kohta; Maatalousvero 5 § 2 mom: Insurance compensation may not be included in agricultural income for a tax year if the taxpayer has not yet acquired or is not entitled to receive the compensation amount for that year.

Keywords

AI generated
agricultural income tax insurance compensation taxable asset rebuilding costs uncontested right farm building fire tax assessment year

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Maatalousvero 4 §
Maatalousvero 5 § 1 mom 2 kohta
Maatalousvero 5 § 2 mom
AI generated
kko-other_2001_459
Supreme Court dismisses insurer's claim that insured company failed to mitigate loss after knowing repairs were covered.
insurance_1977_6687-1976
Insurance court dismisses claim where late notice caused by minor's age lacks serious reasons.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1057
Insurance company assigned claim to insured; insured must pay insurer despite reducing damages request.
kko-precedent_1987_74
Supreme Court held that sulfur fumigation equipment causing fire is a heating device, mandating coverage under commercial greenhouse insurance.
appeal_1986_helsinki__2524
Court awarded 16% interest on 1982 damages claims as they were not delayed under the Interest Act.

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

Maanviljelijän karjarakennus oli palanut 9.12.1988. Hovioikeuden 21.5.1991 antamalla lainvoimaisella tuomiolla vahinkovakuutusyhdistys oli velvoitettu korvaamaan vahinko rakennuksen jälleenhankinta-arvon määräisenä. Maanviljelijä ja vahinkovakuutusyhdistys eivät olleet vielä verovuonna päässeet yksimielisyyteen rakentamiskustannusten määrästä eikä uudisrakennuksen rakentamista siten ollut voitu vielä aloittaa verovuonna. Verotuksessa maatalouden tuloon lisättiin palovakuutuskorvaus jälleenhankinta-arvoon perustuen arvion mukaan 875.000 markan määräisenä. Korkein hallintooikeus katsoi, ettei tuota määrää voitu lisätä maatalouden verovuoden tuloon, kun maanviljelijä ei ollut saanut eikä hänellä ollut edes riidatonta oikeutta saada verovuonna vakuutuskorvausta 875.000 markan määräisenä.

Äänestys 4-1.

Verovuosi_1991

MaatVL 4 §

MaatVL 5 § 1 mom 2 kohta

MaatVL 5 § 2 mom