24.1.2018

More Restrictions to Deductibility of Interest Costs—Real Estate Business Brought within Scope of Restrictions

Related services

A Government Bill proposing new restrictions to the tax deductibility of interest costs was published on Friday, 19 January 2018. The majority of the amendments are based on the provisions of the EU’s directive on the prevention of tax avoidance and are meant to enter into force from the start of 2019.

The tax deductibility of interest expenses is currently restricted in the income taxation of entities, general partnerships and limited partnerships. The restriction only applies to interest payments between affiliated companies and is not applied, for example, to companies operating in the real estate or financial service industries.

The bill proposes expanding the restriction to the interest costs of loans from outside parties. Furthermore, the restriction’s scope of application would be expanded to also cover companies in the real estate and financial service industries. The amendment will likely have a significant impact on real estate and real estate investment companies.

According to the bill, the restriction provisions would still not apply to companies with net interest costs, i.e. with interest costs exceeding their interest income, that are no more than EUR 500,000 during the tax year.

Companies would continue to be allowed to deduct their interest costs in full up to the amount of interest income. The net interest costs could be deducted to the extent that they are no more than 25% of the ad-justed result of operations (i.e. the result of operations plus interest costs and deductible depreciations and amortisations and group contributions and less granted group contributions). Net interest costs exceeding this percentage would not be deductible. As a mitigation of the restriction to deductibility, companies would still be able to deduct net interest costs paid to outside parties up to three million euros regardless of the percentage limit.

According to the bill, the deductibility of interest costs would only be limited when the taxpayer is part of a group or is affiliated with another party or has a permanent establishment. This delineation seems prob-lematic from the perspective of the equal treatment of taxpayers.

The current restriction provision contains a balance sheet exemption rule. Under this rule, the restriction is not applied if the taxpayer can file a submission showing that its equity to total assets ratio is greater than or equal to the corresponding ratio of its adopted consolidated balance sheet. This provision has proved to be difficult to apply in practice, and the bill proposes that it be removed.

Latest references

We acted as legal advisor to eQ Fund Management Company Ltd in a structural arrangement in which Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund and Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund II transferred their assets to the newly launched Special Investment Fund eQ Residential Fund III. In connection with the arrangement, eQ Residential Fund III raised 37 million euros in new capital, and its fundraising will continue throughout 2025.  The portfolio of eQ Residential Fund III consists of 19 residential properties completed between 2021 and 2024, comprising nearly 1,400 apartments located in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Turku, and Tampere.
Case published 21.5.2025
We assisted eQ Community Properties Fund in the sale of two healthcare properties to a fund managed by Northern Horizon. The properties have a total floor area of approximately 3,500 square meters. The two properties are located in Espoo and Lahti. The Espoo asset was completed in 2018 and the Lahti asset was completed in 2023. Both assets are operated by Attendo, the leading care provider in the Nordic region.
Case published 9.5.2025
We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 and 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025