Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1998:71 AI generated

Shareholder denied hidden dividend due to lack of statutory disclosure procedure for dormant company assets.

Case Number KHO:1998:71
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 shareholder's claim for a hidden dividend regarding assets held in a dormant company's bank account. The court found that the assets were distributed without the mandatory disclosure procedure required by the Companies Act, which is a prerequisite for recognizing a hidden dividend under the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the tax authority's refusal to grant the hidden dividend status was upheld as legally correct.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Verotuslain 57 § 2 momentti; Osakeyhtiölain selvitysmenettely: A hidden dividend under the Income Tax Act is not recognized if the underlying asset distribution from a dormant company was made without complying with the mandatory disclosure procedure of the Companies Act.

Keywords

AI generated
hidden dividend dormant company disclosure procedure tax liability asset distribution shareholder claim Companies Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Verotuslaki 57 § 2 momentti
Osakeyhtiölaki
AI generated
admin_2012_vaasa__396
Administrative court held a purchased limited partnership not dissolved for tax purposes when an outsider continues business alone.
kho-precedent_2001_63
Finnish Supreme Administrative Court ruled MBA costs are business expenses, not salary, exempting employer from advance tax withholding.
admin_2014_eastern-finland__5482
Tax court rules that a savings bank changing to a foundation during a business transfer is not dissolved for tax purposes under section 24 of the Income Tax Act.
kko-other_2002_3264
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding tax evasion charge under specific criminal law provision.
kho-precedent_2004_82
Preparation of tax assessment did not create bias for tax appeal board member under administrative procedure law.

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

Osakeyhtiön osakas ei saanut verotuslain 57 §:n 2 momentissa tarkoitettua peiteltyä osinkoa, kun noin kymmenen vuotta aiemmin toimintansa lopettaneen ja velattoman osakeyhtiön pankkitilillä olleet varat jaettiin osakeyhtiölaissa säädettyä selvitysmenettelyä tekemättä. Verovuosi 1995. Äänestys 4-1.