Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1999:39 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal regarding interest deduction for construction debt not yet used as residence.

Case Number KHO:1999:39
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 taxpayer's appeal against the tax authority's reclassification of construction debt interest. The court found that while the debt was initially treated as housing-related, the structure remained under construction and was not yet used as a residence in 1993 and 1994. Consequently, the interest was correctly reclassified as general debt interest, denying the additional deduction claimed by the taxpayer.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tuloverolaki 144 §; The court held that interest on construction debt qualifies for special housing tax treatment only when the building is actually used as a residence, not merely when construction has commenced.

Keywords

AI generated
income tax law interest deduction construction debt residence requirement tax appeal procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tuloverolaki 144 §
AI generated
admin_1996_hame-county__8
Finland's Supreme Administrative Court allowed interest deduction for a home loan where the house was sold before occupancy.
admin_1991_oulu-county__118
Court denies mortgage interest deduction for vacant land before house completion and occupancy.
admin_2008_hameenlinna__119
First home tax exemption applies to the whole property even if only half is owned at the time of transfer.
admin_1998_hame-county__575
Tax court allows interest deduction for loan used to repay mortgage guarantee debt on primary residence.
admin_1998_uusimaa-county__81
Court dismissed appeal claiming mortgage interest reclassification invalidates prior year extra interest deduction.

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 oli vuonna 1989 ostanut tontin, jolle hän oli saatuaan vuonna 1990 rakennusluvan alkanut rakentaa rakennusta. Vuodelta 1992 toimitetussa verotuksessa oli rakennuksen hankintaan otettu velka katsottu asuntovelaksi ja A:lle oli vuosilta 1993 ja 1994 toimitetuissa verotuksissa tuon velan perusteella myönnetty ylimääräinen korkovähennys. Veroasiamiehen valituksen johdosta velan korot katsottiin vuosien 1993 ja 1994 verotuksissa muun velan koroiksi, koska rakenteilla olevaa rakennusta ei ollut otettu käyttöön omana asuntona. Koska veroasiamies ei ollut hakenut muutosta verovuodelta 1992 toimitettuun verotukseen, vaatimus ylimääräisten korkovähennysten poistamisesta vuosien 1993 ja 1994 verotuksissa hylättiin. Verovuosi 1993. Verovuosi 1994. Äänestys 3-2.

Tuloverolaki 144 §