Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:2001:15 AI generated

VAT on not applicable to fees for services rendered by a Finnish subsidiary to a foreign parent company.

Case Number KHO:2001:15
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 allowed the Finnish parent company's claim for a VAT refund regarding fees paid to its own subsidiary. The court found that the subsidiary, acting as an agent for the parent, provided services to a foreign entity, meaning the place of supply was outside Finland. Consequently, the domestic VAT law did not apply to this specific transaction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Arvonlisäverolaki 41 §, 42 § 1 mom. 6 kohta ja 102 §: The place of supply for services provided by a Finnish subsidiary to a foreign parent company, where the subsidiary acts as an agent, is considered to be outside Finland, thus exempting the transaction from Finnish VAT.

Keywords

AI generated
Value Added Tax Place of Supply Finnish Subsidiary Foreign Parent Company VAT Refund Claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Arvonlisäverolaki 41 §
Arvonlisäverolaki 41 §, 42 § 1 mom.
Arvonlisäverolaki 42 § 1 mom. 6 kohta
Arvonlisäverolaki 102 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_2015_135
Parent company denied VAT deduction for acquisition services due to lack of taxable activity status at the time.
kho-precedent_2015_84
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; transfer tax paid by parent for dividend distribution is not deductible business expense.
kho-precedent_2002_72
Supreme Administrative Court allows corporate tax loss carryforwards after merger when parent holds majority of subsidiary shares.
admin_2012_helsinki__341
Administrative court dismissed VAT refund claim where advance payment was deemed salary, preventing offset against subsequent tax liability.
kho-precedent_2008_57
Supreme Administrative Court rules Finnish VAT not due on re-exported Russian depot services without Finnish performance.

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 omisti 97,8 prosenttia Englannissa toimivan X Ltd:n osakekannasta. Vuonna 1994 A Oy myi omistamansa X Ltd:n osakkeet liiketoimintansa järjestelyjen yhteydessä. Järjestelyissä ja osakkeiden myynnissä A Oy käytti konsulttina kansainvälisen pankkiiriliikkeen suomalaista tytäryhtiötä B Oy:tä. B Oy veloitti 15.12.1994 A Oy:ltä toimeksiantosopimuksen mukaisesta tehtävästään sovitun palkkion, joka sisälsi arvonlisäveron.

Arvonlisäverolaki 41 §, 42 § 1 mom. 6 kohta ja 102 §