12.5.2023

Supreme Administrative Court issued a yearbook decision on deducting VAT on listing costs

In its yearbook decision KHO 2023:33, the Supreme Administrative Court examined whether the purchases that concern the company’s stock exchange listing and the related personnel offering as well as the purchases that concern the sale of shares owned by the company’s existing shareholders were made for the company’s business that is subject to VAT and are thus deductible or whether some of the purchases concern the sale of the shareholders’ shares and are thus a non-deductible purchases for the company.

What was the case about?

A Ltd was the group’s parent company that had been listed in December 2015 and that sold administrative services to other companies in the group. Before the listing, A Ltd’s majority owner was the fund B Limited Partnership, which is managed by the private equity investor C Ltd, and the other largest shareholders of A Ltd were mainly private individuals. A Ltd’s listing was carried out by arranging a share sale consisting of an institutional offering and a public offering, whereby B Limited Partnership and the other shareholders offered their shares in A Ltd for sale. In addition, the company arranged a personnel offering and raised the assets from it. Before the listing, A Ltd had approximately 7.8 million shares in total. The old shareholders sold in total 4 million shares in the listing and received approximately EUR 40.2 million in net assets from the offering. In the personnel offering, a little less than 46,000 shares were subscribed for, and the company raised approximately EUR 300,000 from the offering.

Deductibility of purchases relating to listing

According to the general provision of the Value Added Tax Act on the deductibility of purchases, the person liable to VAT can deduct the VAT payable on purchases that are made for its business subject to VAT. It was deemed that A Ltd’s business as such was fully entitled to VAT deduction. However, taking into account the amount of shares sold by the old shareholders, it was deemed that the listing was not carried out solely in order to raise assets for the company’s business entitling to VAT deduction but partially in the interest of the old shareholders. Due to this, the Supreme Administrative Court ended up deeming, in the same way as the Administrative Court and the Adjustment Board, that the VAT on the listing costs could not be considered fully deductible for the company. The Supreme Administrative Court deemed, however, that only the purchases made for the share sale of the old shareholders and – with respect to the purchases fully concerning the listing – the part of the purchases that concerned the shareholders’ share sale were excluded from the right of VAT deduction. The company was thus entitled to deduct the purchases related to the personnel offering, the part of the purchases that fully concerned the listing and that could not be deemed to concern the share sale of the old shareholders as well as the purchases that were not really related to the share sale but to changes in the company’s business caused by the listing (such as legal and bookkeeping advisory services concerning changes in the company’s business caused by the listing). 

Determining and allocating the right of deduction

In accordance with the Value Added Tax Act, VAT can only be deducted from a purchase to the extent the purchase is made for use that is subject to VAT. In this case, the Adjustment Board determined the share of deductible listing costs purely based on the new shares issued in conjunction with the listing in proportion to the total number of shares after the listing. Based on this determination, the company could have only deducted 0.6% of the purchases as general costs relating to its business subject to VAT. The Supreme Administrative Court deemed that the actual allocation of the purchases for different purposes was not presented sufficiently specifically. Basically, the company should have specified for each invoice which purchases were allocated for the company’s deductible business and which for the shareholders’ non-deductible share sale. The distribution ground for the right of deduction should have only been determined after this. The deductible share of 0.6%, as assessed by the Adjustment Board, was deemed to be clearly too low with respect to the fact that only the purchases that concern the sale of the old shareholders’ shares and the share of the total listing costs that concerns the share sale should have been excluded from the right of deduction. The decisions by the Administrative Court and the Adjustment Board were overturned and remitted to the Tax Administration for re-calculation of the deductible share of the listing costs.

How does this affect the future?

The Supreme Administrative Court’s decision is a good reminder that, when it comes to VAT deductions, particular attention should be paid to whether the question is of a purchase concerning the business subject to VAT or whether the right of deduction is restricted, for example, by the fact that the purchase can be deemed to partially concern some other business or perhaps the business of some other person liable to tax. This applies to purchases made within the company’s business as well as to purchases related to ownership arrangements or mergers and acquisitions, for example. As the Supreme Administrative Court deemed in the aforementioned decision, the contents of purchases and their allocation for the VAT deductible and non-deductible share should be determined as specifically as possible. The process to determine the deductible share of the VAT included in the general costs may be complex and time-consuming. We at Castrén & Snellman will be happy to help your company in all questions related to VAT, such as questions related to the general costs.

Latest references

We are assisting Prisma Properties AB in a sale and leaseback arrangement with Kesko Oyj comprising ten grocery retail properties. The transaction value is approximately EUR 59 million, and the properties are located in Sastamala, Jyväskylä, Lappeenranta, Vihti, Oulu, Saarijärvi, Liminka, Imatra, Loviisa, and Eurajoki.  As part of the arrangement, the properties are leased back to Kesko Oyj under lease agreements with a weighted average lease term of 11.6 years. The portfolio includes well-known store concepts such as K-Citymarket, K-Supermarket, and K-Market.
Case published 20.11.2025
We are acting as the joint legal advisor to Oomi Oy and Lumme Energia Oy in a transaction whereby Lumme Energia will merge with Oomi. As from the completion of the merger, the combined entity will be the largest electricity retail and service company in the Finnish market. In 2024, Oomi reported a turnover of EUR 373.9 million and had approximately 110 employees. Lumme Energia’s turnover for the same year was approximately EUR 314.6 million and it had approximately 50 employees. The transaction is primarily driven by the recent developments in the electricity market and the strategic goal to develop competitive products and services. Another key objective is to further enhance the customer experience, which is a shared value between the two companies. As a result of the merger, Lumme Energia’s customers will transfer to Oomi, and Lumme Energia will become one of Oomi’s shareholders. The completion of the transaction is subject to an approval by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority.
Case published 29.8.2025
We acted as the Finnish legal counsel for the funders to Nevel Oy in a EUR 665 million refinancing arrangement through a mix of multicurrency bank loans and private placement notes. Nevel is a utility infrastructure company offering advanced industrial and real estate infrastructure solutions that are fit-for-purpose and future-proof. The transaction supports Nevel’s growth strategy and its goal to help customers to achieve climate goals.
Case published 20.8.2025
We are acting as the legal advisor to WithSecure Corporation in Diana BidCo Oy’s voluntary public cash tender offer for all the issued and outstanding shares in WithSecure. The tender offer values WithSecure’s total equity at approximately EUR 299 million. Diana BidCo is a private limited company incorporated and existing under the laws of Finland that will be indirectly owned by a consortium formed for purposes of the tender offer by certain affiliated funds of CVC Capital Partners Plc and Risto Siilasmaa. The consortium believes that the partnership strengthens and accelerates the road to WithSecure’s long-standing goal of becoming Europe’s most trusted cybersecurity partner by positioning the company to lead the next era of business cybersecurity. WithSecure’s shares are listed on the official list of Nasdaq Helsinki. WithSecure is a Europe-based cybersecurity company that helps protect businesses and is committed to strong partnerships with customers and collaborators. WithSecure’s customers trust WithSecure with outcome-based cybersecurity that protects and enables their operations. The completion of the tender offer is subject to the satisfaction or waiver by the offeror of certain customary conditions on or prior to the offeror’s announcement of the final results of the tender offer. The tender offer is currently expected to be completed during the fourth quarter of 2025. The Takeover Board of the Securities Markets Association issued on 4 August 2025 a new recommendation (1/2025) on good securities market practice that deals with the target company’s board of directors’ obligations in case of a consortium offer in which a major shareholder of the company participates in the consortium.
Case published 8.8.2025