Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Oulun LO 8.7.1986 496/II AI generated

Court allows re-stamping of mortgage notes without new tax stamp after stamp duty law changes.

Case Number Oulun LO 8.7.1986 496/II
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland allowed the bank to re-stamp mortgage notes without issuing a new tax stamp. The bank sought to attach debt notes to land and buildings after a buyer purchased the property and consented to the attachment. The court ruled that re-stamping was permissible because the original notes were already stamped according to the law at the time of their creation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

LeimaveroL 45 §; LeimaveroL 46 §: The court established that re-stamping of previously stamped debt instruments for mortgage purposes does not require a new tax stamp when the original stamping complied with the law effective at the time of issuance.

Keywords

AI generated
mortgage attachment stamp duty law re-stamping procedure tax compliance administrative court ruling land registration debt instrument validity

Cited Legislation

AI generated
LeimaveroL 45 §
LeimaveroL 46 §
AI generated
kko-precedent_1989_104
Security on property remains valid after debt transfer unless formally extinguished by law.
admin_1990_hame-county__721
Court dismisses stamp duty on debt notes where owner assumed liability before security was cancelled.
admin_1991_mikkeli-county__599
Court held that a new loan agreement replacing an old one constitutes a new debt instrument requiring fresh stamp duty.
admin_1989_hame-county__903
Court allows stamp duty deduction for prior levy despite lapse and owner change due to prior liability assumption.
kho-precedent_1998_10
Supreme Administrative Court ruled that a Finnish client's London branch debt note was exempt from stamp duty under the Stamp Duty Act.

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

Velkakirjat oli A:n velasta kiinnitetty määräalan vuokraoikeuteen

ja määräalalla oleviin rakennuksiin. B:n ostettua

mainitun määräalan rakennuksineen ja annettua suostumuksensa

kiinnityksen hakemiseen määräalasta muodostettuun tonttiin,

pankin ei ollut, hakiessaan edellä mainittujen velkakirjojen

kiinnittämistä tonttiin, leimattava aikaisemmin leimaverolain

45 §:n säännösten mukaisesti leimattuja velkakirjoja uudelleen

muutoin kuin leimaverolain 45 §:n säännösten muuttumisen

johdosta tarpeellisin lisäleimoin.

LeimaveroL 45 §

LeimaveroL 46 §