Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Keski-Suomen LO 31.8.1989 873 AI generated

Holding that holder's promissory notes do not qualify as security for a wrap-around note under stamp duty law.

Case Number Keski-Suomen LO 31.8.1989 873
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court ruled that holder's promissory notes signed on January 30, 1989, did not serve as security for a prior wrap-around note under the Stamp Duty Act. The Lääninoikeus determined these notes were not exempt from stamp duty because they lacked the specific legal characterization required by the statute. Consequently, the court ordered the payment of the previously uncollected stamp duty as erroneous.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

LeimaveroL 47 § 1 mom; LeimaveroL 48 §: Holder's promissory notes signed after the issuance of a wrap-around note do not constitute the required security for that note under the Stamp Duty Act and remain subject to stamp duty.

Keywords

AI generated
holder's promissory notes wrap-around note stamp duty exemption security for loan Lääninoikeus ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
LeimaveroL 47 § 1 mom
LeimaveroL 48 §
LeimaveroL 95 § 1 mom
AI generated
kho-precedent_1997_44
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses claim for stamp duty refund due to invalid mortgage security registration.
admin_1994_northern-karelia-county__717
Stamp duty on corrected loan amount deemed paid correctly despite initial overpayment error.
admin_1986_mikkeli-county__400
Court allows late payment penalties on tax reduced by administrative court before due date.
admin_2000_turku__540
Administrative court orders tax authority to refund stamp duty where land transferor was not legally required to register title.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2024:28
Loss on debt instrument write-down in insolvency is deductible business expense if funds were invested for income generation.

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, olivatko 30.1.1989 allekirjoitetut haltijavelkakirjat 27.1.1989 allekirjoitetun käärevelkakirjan mukaisen lainan vakuutena leimaverolain 48 §:ssä tarkoitetulla tavalla.

Käärevelkakirja, määrältään 60 000 markkaa, oli allekirjoitettu 27.1.1989. Laina nostettiin 30.1.1989, jolloin myös allekirjoitettiin kaksi 30 000 markan määräistä haltijavelkakirjaa, joiden maksamisen vakuudeksi on vahvistettu kiinnitys 15.2.1989. Lääninoikeus katsoi, etteivät haltijavelkakirjat olleet käärevelkakirjaa pankille annettaessa lainan vakuutena leimaverolain 48 §:ssä tarkoitetulla tavalla. Käärevelkakirja ei siten ole leimaverosta vapaa eikä siitä suoritettua 960 markan leimaveroa ole näin ollen katsottava suoritetun erehdyksessä aiheettomasti.

LeimaveroL 47 § 1 mom

LeimaveroL 48 §

LeimaveroL 95 § 1 mom