Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:2000:3 AI generated

Court dismissed tax deduction claim for mortgage on property bought for investment purposes by elderly parents.

Case Number KHO:2000:3
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 claim to deduct a mortgage interest payment for a property purchased in 1988. The taxpayer argued the loan was for income generation, but the court found the primary purpose was investment rather than acquiring a residence for the elderly parents. Consequently, the deduction was rejected because the statutory requirement for income-generating intent was not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tuloverolaki 58 § 1 mom. 3 k.: A mortgage interest payment is deductible only if the primary purpose of the acquisition is income generation; purchases made primarily for investment purposes do not qualify for the deduction.

Keywords

AI generated
income tax deduction mortgage interest investment purpose residential property tax liability Supreme Administrative Court Finland tax law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tuloverolaki 58 § 1 mom. 3 k.
Tuloverolaki 58 § 1 mom. 3 k.
AI generated
admin_1991_oulu-county__118
Court denies mortgage interest deduction for vacant land before house completion and occupancy.
admin_2016_helsinki__1074
Court denies tax deduction for apartment renovation costs as the unit was not used for family residence.
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_1988_uusimaa-county__523
Court rules that selling shares in a property company constitutes business income when done regularly.
kho-precedent_2015_1
Finnish Supreme Administrative Court allows tax-free gain from selling half a plot where the taxpayer lived for years, despite a new building existing. The court ruled that the original residence's location qualifies for tax exemption under the Income Tax Act. The decision clarifies that the existence of a replacement building does not negate the tax-free status of the land portion sold.

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 1988 ostanut asuinhuoneiston hallintaan oikeuttavat osakkeet iäkkäiltä appivanhemmiltaan, jotka saivat jäädä huoneistoon asumaan yhtiövastiketta vastaan. Appivanhempien jouduttua vuosina 1996 ja 1997 hoitokotiin A vaihtoi huoneiston vuonna 1997 pienempään huoneistoon saaden lisäksi rahaa 150 000 markkaa. Vuonna 1988 ostetun huoneiston hankintaan otettua lainaa ei pidetty tulonhankkimisvelkana, koska huoneiston hankkimisen ensisijaisena tarkoituksena oli muu kuin sijoitustarkoitus. Verovuosi 1996. Äänestys 4-1.

Tuloverolaki 58 § 1 mom. 3 k.