Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Oulun HAO 15.11.2011 11/0538/1 AI generated

Court dismisses tax deduction claim when siblings use property as main residence, invalidating free-time residence status for owner.

Case Number Oulun HAO 15.11.2011 11/0538/1
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the taxpayer's claim for a family expense deduction based on the property being a free-time residence. The court found that two of the taxpayer's sisters used the same property as their permanent residence under a lifetime management right, which contradicted the taxpayer's assertion of using it solely for leisure. Consequently, the court ruled that the property did not meet the legal definition of a free-time residence under the Income Tax Act, denying the deduction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ennakkoperintälaki 2 § ja 3 §; Tuloverolaki 127 a § 1 mom: A property cannot be classified as a free-time residence for tax deduction purposes if family members exercising lifetime management rights utilize it as their permanent residence.

Keywords

AI generated
free-time residence status family expense deduction lifetime management right permanent residence conflict income tax deduction denial sibling residence usage administrative court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ennakkoperintälaki 2 §
Ennakkoperintälaki 2 § ja 3 §
Ennakkoperintälaki 3 §
Tuloverolaki 127 a § 1 mom
Tuloverolaki 127 a § 1 mom
AI generated
admin_2009_turku__420
Administrative court dismisses appeal by tenant claiming municipal council membership violates equality law.
admin_2004_vaasa__176
Administrative court dismissed appeal by shareholder of residential building regarding environmental permit for power plant.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:41
Supreme Court dismisses eviction claim where usage right expired after 100 years of free use.
kko-precedent_2002_17
Supreme Court of Finland dismisses appeal, ruling defendant knowingly sold property still owned by the finance company.
kho-precedent_2013_30
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal; home municipality determines tax status over actual usage duration.

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

X omisti R:n kaupungissa sijaitsevan kiinteistön. X:n kahdella sisarella oli kiinteistöön ositus- ja perinnönjakosopimuksen nojalla elinikäinen hallintaoikeus ja he vastasivat kiinteistön ylläpitokuluista. Sisaret käyttivät kiinteistöllä olevaa asuntoa vakituisena asuntonaan. X, jolla oli vakituinen asunto O:n kaupungissa, oli todennut käyttävänsä asuntoa vapaa-ajan asuntonaan. Kotitalousvähennysvaatimuksen perusteena olevien töiden kustannukset oli jaettu X:n sekä hänen kahden sisarensa kesken.

Hallinto-oikeus katsoi, että kun X:n kaksi sisarta olivat käyttäneet asuntoa elinikäisen hallintaoikeutensa nojalla vakituisena asuntonaan, asunto ei ollut X:n käytössä tuloverolain 127 a §:ssä tarkoitetulla tavalla vapaa-ajan asuntona. X:llä ei siten ollut oikeutta saada ennakkoperinnässä hyväkseen kotitalousvähennystä.

Verovuosi 2011

Ennakkoperintälaki 2 § ja 3 §

Tuloverolaki 127 a § 1 mom