Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion LO 26.3.1986 255/II AI generated

Inheritance tax deduction for new debt denied due to missed statutory appeal deadline.

Case Number Kuopion LO 26.3.1986 255/II
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The County Administrative Court dismissed the appeal regarding the deduction of a new debt from the estate's assets for inheritance tax purposes. The deceased left a significant surplus, yet the tax authority assessed taxes on the full amount without allowing the debt reduction. The court ruled that the applicant failed to file a formal objection within the strict statutory deadline, rendering the deduction unavailable.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

PerVL 50 §; PerVL 56 §: A new debt incurred after death cannot be deducted from estate assets for inheritance tax if a formal objection is not filed within the prescribed time limit.

Keywords

AI generated
inheritance tax estate assets new debt deduction statutory deadline administrative appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
PerVL 50 §
PerVL 56 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO:1979B-II-629
AI generated
admin_1995_northern-karelia-county__140
Administrative court allows debt deduction from estate assets under inheritance tax law despite unequal distribution.
admin_1992_hame-county__1133
Inheritance tax collection barred by ten-year statute of limitations despite administrative reorganization measures.
admin_1988_uusimaa-county__67
Inheritance tax surcharges paid during the decedent's life are deductible from estate value.
admin_1990_kuopio-county__21
Court dismisses claim to deduct estate administration costs without prior board approval or likelihood of occurrence.
admin_1993_northern-karelia-county__609
Inheritance tax appeal dismissed; court upheld valuation based on market value at death despite later sales.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä asiassa oli, voitiinko pesään ilmennyt uusi

velka vähentää pesän varoista perustevalituksin.

A kuoli 18.5.1985. Perukirjan mukaiset kuolinpesän varat olivat

33.946,70 mk ja velat 4.897 mk. Kuolinpesän säästö oli

29.049,70 mk. A:lta jäi perillisinä sisaret B ja C.

Perintöverolautakunta toimitti perintöverotuksen perukirjan

nojalla määräten B:lle ja C:lle kummallekin perintöveroa

14.525 mk:n osuudesta II veroluokan mukaan 942,80 mk.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, ettei A:lle maksuunpantu lopullinen vero

vuodelta 1984 ollut perustevalituksin vähennettävissä kuolinpesän

varoista. Perintöveronjärjestelyä ei ollut haettu ja

aika sen hakemiselle oli lääninoikeuden päätöksentekohetkellä

kulunut umpeen.

PerVL 50 §

PerVL 56 §

KHO:1979B-II-629