The Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (SAC) has recently issued three rulings concerning the tax exemption regime of investment funds in section 20a of the Income Tax Act (ITA). The judgments are based on a ruling (C-342/20) by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued in spring 2022, in which the CJEU ruled that section 20a of the ITA conflicted with EU law. You can read more about that case here.
23.12.2022
New Finnish case law considering the tax exemption of foreign investment funds
Lotta Manu & Mikko Alakare
Related services
Tags
The tax exemption provision, section 20a of the ITA, entered into force in 2020. The reasoning behind the legislative change was to include the qualifying criteria for a tax-exempt investment fund in tax law. The provision states that to meet the tax exemption criteria, a foreign fund must be contractual, open-ended and open to the public as well as have at least 30 investors. In addition, alternative investment funds (AIF) are still deemed tax-exempt if their capital value is at least 2 MEUR, their investors are professional or equivalent, and they distribute at least 3/4 of their annual profits to the investors. AIFs that invest mainly in real estate assets are required to distribute at least 3/4 of their annual profits. The provision is based on the assumption that funds that are established under Finnish law automatically fulfil the criteria.
After the CJEU’s ruling, it has already been established that other than contractual funds may also be deemed tax-exempt in Finland if the fund is otherwise comparable to a Finnish tax-exempt investment fund.
SAC 2022:139
The first ruling, SAC 2022:139, was issued on 12 December 2022. The case concerned a Luxembourg FCP, a contractual umbrella fund whose sub-fund A invested mainly in real estate assets. The fund, and therefore also sub-fund A, had only one direct unitholder.
Section 20a(4) of the ITA refers to chapter 16a(4) of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Act, which provides that a special investment fund investing in real estate should have at least ten unitholders. The question before the SAC was therefore whether the sub-fund A fulfils the conditions for tax exemption, even though it has only one direct unitholder.
In its ruling, the SAC stated that, considering the wording of section 20a(4) of the ITA and the government proposal on its inclusion as well as the principle of legality in taxation, the tax exemption in this case is only conditional on the profit distribution criteria included in the wording of section 20a of the ITA. Consequently, the provision was not deemed to establish any other conditions for the tax exemption.
SAC 2022:142
The second ruling, SAC 2022:142, was issued on 14 December 2022. The case concerned the comparability of an AIF fund to a tax-exempt investment fund under section 20 of the ITA for the tax year 2019 and to an alternative investment fund under section 20a of the ITA for the tax year 2020. The relevant factor in this case was also the number of unitholders.
The fund in question was a French FPCI, a contractual alternative investment fund, which had 33 external investors in total. However, 18 of these investors belonged to a group consisting of regional banks and their group companies. In its preliminary ruling, the Central Tax Board had considered that the group was a single entity and therefore the total number of unitholders would be below the required 30, meaning that the fund would not meet the criteria for tax exemption under section 20a of the ITA.
In its ruling, the SAC held that the investor group was not to be considered a single entity. Therefore, the fund had more than 30 unitholders and fulfilled the conditions for tax exemption in this respect. For the tax year 2020, the SAC stated that, as a closed fund, to qualify for the tax exemption under section 20a(3) of the ITA, the fund must also fulfil the profit distribution criteria.
SAC 2022:138
The third recent ruling of the SAC, issued on 12 December 2022, concerned a sub-fund of a Luxembourg alternative investment fund established as an FCP. The fund invested mainly in real estate assets. The case focused on the question whether it was relevant for the comparability analysis that the fund had invested more than 1/5 of its assets in construction or development projects, which is not allowed for Finnish tax-exempt real estate funds. Even though the requirement is not spelled out in the tax exemption provision, section 20a of the ITA, the SAC concluded that since more than 1/5 of the fund’s assets were invested in development projects, the fund did not qualify for tax exemption. The court noted that the Finnish tax exemption regime for real estate investments in development projects has been capped to 1/5. Therefore, SAC stated that even if the requirement on the nature of the real estate investments may restrict the free movement of capital, it is acceptable as the fund, based on its investment structure, is not objectively comparable to a Finnish real estate fund.
Conclusions
These decisions were expected after the judgment of the CJEU in spring 2022. Following the SAC’s rulings, it is becoming even more clear that section 20a of the ITA must be interpreted taking into account the requirement of objective comparability that has been emphasised in CJEU’s case law. Although the rulings were not surprising, they provide certainty to non-resident funds considering investments in Finland.
Our experienced team is happy to discuss these cases with you in more detail and to assist you, for example, in withholding tax reclaim processes and with structuring your investments in Finland. Please do not hesitate to contact us.
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026