Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion LO 24.11.1987 826/I AI generated

Administrative court dismisses stamp duty claim where highest bidder retains ownership in forced auction.

Case Number Kuopion LO 24.11.1987 826/I
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland dismissed the claim that the highest bidder in a forced auction was liable for stamp duty on the sale deed. The court found that since the bidder did not lose ownership rights, the document was not a transfer of title under the Stamp Duty Act. Consequently, the statutory obligation to pay the 5% duty did not arise.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

LeimaveroL 16 §; LeimaveroL 25 §: Stamp duty is not payable on a sale deed issued to the highest bidder in a forced auction when they retain ownership rights.

Keywords

AI generated
forced auction stamp duty liability ownership retention sale deed transfer highest bidder rights administrative court ruling property law Finland

Cited Legislation

AI generated
LeimaveroL 16 §
LeimaveroL 25 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO 1967 II 716
KHO T:2562, A:15.6.1988
AI generated
admin_1995_hame-county__85
Taxable year for forced auction sale is the calendar year of the sale, not the year the contract is drawn.
kko-precedent_2005_32
Supreme Court rules that the purchaser at a forced auction is the proper opposing party entitled to reply to the owners' appeal.
kho-precedent_2011_67
Supreme Administrative Court ruled company liable for 2007 property tax despite conditional title transfer to a new entity.
kho-precedent_2013_4
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; final court ruling on true ownership binds tax authorities regarding property tax liability.
admin_1987_uusimaa-county__715
Stamp duty exemption granted for real estate transfer via shares in a company not yet registered.

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

Oliko henkilön suoritettava lainhuudatusleimaveroa tehdessään

pakkohuutokaupassa korkeimman tarjouksen omasta kiinteistöstään.

Nimismies toimitti pakkohuutokaupan, jossa myytiin A:n velasta

hänen omistamansa kiinteistö. Huutokaupassa A teki korkeimman

tarjouksen. Antaessaan A:lle kauppakirjan, nimismies

määräsi kauppakirjan leimattavaksi 5 prosentin mukaan huutokauppahinnasta

eli 8 550 mk.

Kun A on tilan pakkohuutokaupassa tehnyt korkeimman hyväksytyn

tarjouksen, hän ei ole menettänyt omistusoikeuttaan tilaan.

A:lle annettu kauppakirja ei siten ole leimaverolaissa

tarkoitettu omistusoikeuden luovutuskirja. A ei näin ollen

ollut velvollinen suorittamaan leimaveroa.

LeimaveroL 16 §

LeimaveroL 25 §

Ks. KHO 1967 II 716

KHO:n päätös T:2562, A:15.6.1988: Ei muutosta