Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1998:61 AI generated

Court distinguishes between wages under advance payment law and work compensation for independent contractors.

Case Number KHO:1998:61
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that payments made by A Oy to B Oy were work compensation rather than wages under the advance payment law. The court noted that B Oy's sole shareholder performed tasks as a side activity using company premises and equipment without receiving social security benefits or vacation pay. Consequently, the court determined the payments fell under the work compensation provision instead of the wage definition.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

EnnakkoperintäL 13 §; EnnakkoperintäL 25 §: Payments made to a sole shareholder performing work as a side activity without social security benefits constitute work compensation under the work compensation provision rather than wages under the advance payment law.

Keywords

AI generated
advance payment law work compensation sole shareholder side activity wage definition social security benefits independent contractor

Cited Legislation

AI generated
EnnakkoperintäL 13 §
EnnakkoperintäL 25 §
AI generated
admin_2011_kouvola__563
Administrative court dismissed appeal; intermediary's work under company name does not automatically create employment relationship for tax withholding.
kho-precedent_2016_35
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; prior employment did not convert to contract for services for withholding tax purposes.
kho-precedent_2016_154
Supreme Administrative Court ruled franchisee payments are wages, not work compensation, due to lack of independent business status.
kko-precedent_1987_129
Partner liable for partner's embezzlement in open partnership under Commercial Code joint liability rules.
admin_2017_helsinki__205
VAT group status denied because companies did not act jointly with shareholders as taxpayers.

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

A Oy, joka suoritti tuotannon kehitystyötä tuotantolaitoksille, oli sopinut B Oy:n kanssa saamiinsa toimeksiantoihin liittyvistä työsuorituksista, jotka käsittivät suunnitteluja piirtämistyötä. Työtehtävät suoritti B Oy:n ainoa osakas sivutoimenaan B Oy:n toimitiloissa sen laitteilla ja ohjelmilla. Korvaus maksettiin tuntiveloitusperusteella. Vakuutus- ja eläkemaksuja, lomakorvauksia tai muita työsuhteeseen liittyviä etuja ei suoritettu. B Oy oli merkitty ennakkoperintärekisteriin. Näissä oloissa katsottiin, etteivät A Oy:n B Oy:lle maksamat korvaukset olleet B Oy:n osakkaan ennakkoperintälain 13 §:ssä tarkoitettua palkkaa vaan B Oy:n ennakkoperintälain 25 §:ssä tarkoitettua työkorvausta. Ennakkoratkaisu vuodelle 1997.

EnnakkoperintäL 13 §

EnnakkoperintäL 25 §