Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 8.10.1986 1150/II AI generated

Administrative court allows inheritance tax claim by continuing farm operation for minor heir.

Case Number Hämeen LO 8.10.1986 1150/II
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Hämeenlinna reversed the Inheritance Tax Board's decision to deny a tax claim based on the minor heir's age. Although the 14-year-old did not personally work the land, the court found that farming activities continued in his name, satisfying the statutory requirement for continuing agricultural operations. Consequently, the court remanded the case to the Inheritance Tax Board for reconsideration under the relevant inheritance and gift tax provisions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Perintö- ja lahjaverolain 63 a § 1 mom 2 kohda; 63 b §: If agricultural operations continue in the name of a minor heir despite their lack of personal participation, the tax exemption or specific provisions apply based on the continuity of the business rather than the heir's age or direct involvement.

Keywords

AI generated
inheritance tax minor heir agricultural operations continuing business gift tax administrative review farm management

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Perintö- ja lahjaverolain 63 a § 1 mom 2 kohda
Perintö- ja lahjaverolain 63 b §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Puronen: Perintö- ja lahjaverotus (1983) ss. 178-179
Puronen: Perintö- ja lahjaverotus (1983) ss. 178-179
Andersson: DL 1980 ss. 122-125
Andersson: DL 1980 ss. 122-125
AI generated
admin_1986_vaasa-county__269
Gift tax liability denied when donor retained usage rights over funds deposited in child's name.
admin_1987_kuopio-county__846
Inheritance tax exemption denied due to lack of probable farming continuation; case remanded for re-evaluation.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2025:47
Supreme Administrative Court allows residence permit as family member despite alienation by other guardian.
admin_2005_kuopio__680
Administrative court dismissed appeal; management rights transfer does not qualify for inheritance tax relief under Act 55 § 2.
kko-other_2003_957
Court held that nature change from crown land to tax land does not automatically satisfy lease term requirements.

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

Isoäiti lahjoitti alaikäiselle pojanpojalleen puolet maatilasta sekä osuutensa maatalousirtaimistosta. Toisen puolen omistivat lahjansaajan isä ja setä.

Perintöverolautakunta hylkäsi pojan holhoojan vaatimuksen perintö- ja lahjaverolain 63 a ja 63 b §:n soveltamisesta, koska lahjansaajana oli 14-vuotias koululainen.

Vaikka poika ei ollutkaan osallistunut henkilökohtaisesti tilan töihin, tilalla oli jatkettu maa- ja metsätalouden harjoittamista pojan lukuun. Näin ollen lääninoikeus katsoi, että kysymys oli ollut perintö- ja lahjaverolain 63 a §:n 1 momentin 2 kohdassa tarkoitetusta maa- ja metsätalouden harjoittamisen jatkamisesta, sekä kumosi perintöverolautakunnan päätöksen ja palautti asian perintöverolautakunnalle uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.

Vrt. Puronen: Perintö- ja lahjaverotus (1983) ss. 178-179

Vrt. Andersson: DL 1980 ss. 122-125