Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:2000:5 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismissed tax deduction claim for capital contributions made during debt restructuring proceedings.

Case Number KHO:2000:5
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 capital contributions from income tax. The taxpayer had reduced debts through a debt arrangement plan and sold co-owned properties, but failed to deduct the capital payments made to the company. The court ruled that the statutory conditions for deducting such contributions were not met in this specific context.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tuloverolaki 29 §; The court held that capital contributions made by a taxpayer to a company during debt restructuring proceedings do not qualify as deductible expenses under the income tax act.

Keywords

AI generated
income tax deduction capital contributions debt restructuring tax liability reduction Supreme Administrative Court Tuloverolaki expense deduction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tuloverolaki 29 §
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2019:6
Tax court denies deduction for personal guarantees on bankrupt company debts not linked to income-generating activity.
admin_2003_kuopio__502
Individual liable for company debt cannot deduct interest on non-business portion of debt as income-derivative interest.
admin_2003_rovaniemi__344
Court allows interest deduction for terminated company debts when year-end balance sheet shows positive equity.
kho-precedent_1999_18
Supreme Administrative Court allows deduction of business income interest expenses despite negative company capital from prior owner.
kko-precedent_1994_130
Court orders repayment of preferential payment to creditor who used unusual means, harming other creditors' rights in bankruptcy.

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 saanut elantonsa B Oy:stä, jonka osakekannan hän oli omistanut kokonaisuudessaan. B Oy:n jouduttua vuonna 1995 konkurssiin A:n maksettavaksi oli pantti- ja takaussitoumusten perusteella tullut B Oy:n velkoja. A:lle oli vahvistettu yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelyn maksuohjelma, jonka puitteissa, ja A:n puolisonsa kanssa omistamien asunto-osakkeiden myynnissä saaduilla varoilla, hän oli verovuonna lyhentänyt noita vastuitaan. A ei saanut vähentää maksamiaan pääomasuorituksia tulostaan tulon hankkimisesta johtuneina menoina. Verovuosi 1996.

Tuloverolaki 29 §