Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 5.8.1988 957/V AI generated

Court dismisses claim that inheritance period extension applies to sales between relatives under Foreclosure Act.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 5.8.1988 957/V
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the plaintiff's request to extend the inheritance period for a property sale between relatives. The parties argued that the sale should be treated as an inheritance to avoid stamp duty increases, but the court found the transaction was a direct purchase under the Foreclosure Act. Consequently, the court ruled that the special extension for inheritance cases does not apply to sales between relatives, requiring the stamp duty to be calculated on the standard timeline.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

EtuostoL 1 §; EtuostoL 5 §; EtuostoL 19 §: The extension of the inheritance period under the Foreclosure Act does not apply to property sales conducted between relatives as defined in the Act.

Keywords

AI generated
Foreclosure Act inheritance period extension sales between relatives stamp duty calculation Administrative Court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
EtuostoL 1 §
EtuostoL 5 §
EtuostoL 19 §
LeimaveroL 19 §
AI generated
admin_1992_turku-and-pori-county__173
Transfer of ownership after Nov 1, 1990 grants first home tax exemption even if contract signed earlier.
admin_1986_vaasa-county__3751
Spousal joint property purchase requires separate auction request only if ownership share is unclear.
admin_2000_turku__540
Administrative court orders tax authority to refund stamp duty where land transferor was not legally required to register title.
kho-precedent_2000_53
Statute of limitations bars state from collecting stamp duty when tax authority fails to act within prescribed time limits.
admin_1990_hame-county__914
Court allows tax exemption for share sale where ownership transferred after one year of de facto control.

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

A ja hänen puolisonsa olivat 8.1.1985 vahvistetulla kauppakirjalla

ostaneet A:n äidiltä kaupungissa sijaitsevan kiinteistön.

Etuostolain 19 §:n 1 momentin mukainen lainhuudatusajan

alkamisen lykkääntyminen ei tullut etuostolain 19

§:n 2 momentin säännös huomioon otettuna sovellettavaksi,

kun kauppa oli tehty etuostolain 5 §:n 1 momentin 2 kohdassa

tarkoitettujen sukulaisten kesken. Lainhuutoa oli ollut

haettava, kun omistusoikeus oli kauppakirjan mukaan siirtynyt

heti, ja kun 8.4.1985 oi pyhäpäivä, viimeistään 9.4.1985.

Koska lainhuutoa oli haettu 18.6.1985, oli leimaveroa ollut

korotettava 20 prosentilla.

LeimaveroL 19 §

EtuostoL 1 §

EtuostoL 5 §

EtuostoL 19 §