Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 30.11.1989 903/II AI generated

Court allows stamp duty deduction for prior levy despite lapse and owner change due to prior liability assumption.

Case Number Hämeen LO 30.11.1989 903/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 ruled that a stamp duty paid on a previously levied security must be deducted when the security is sought. This applied even though the security had lapsed and the property owner had changed, as the new owner assumed liability before the lapse occurred. The court rejected the dissenting view that the new owner was bound only after the lapse, establishing that prior liability assumption preserves the deduction right.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Leimaverolaki 45 §; Leimaverolaki 46 §: A stamp duty paid on a security that has since lapsed is deductible when the security is sought if the new owner assumed liability for the debt before the lapse occurred.

Keywords

AI generated
stamp duty deduction security lapse owner liability assumption administrative levy property ownership change

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Leimaverolaki 45 §
Leimaverolaki 46 §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KHO 1986 II 620
KHO 1975 II 584
AI generated
kho-precedent_2000_57
Joint liability for a partner's unpaid taxes from 1991 barred after the 1998 tax limitation period expired.
admin_1997_mikkeli-county__515
Court allows tax refund for arrears when inheritance tax law overrides collection law on installment payments.
kko-precedent_2006_15
Supreme Court holds VAT collection statute of limitations applies to all tax assessments including reduced ones from appeal decisions.
admin_1988_uusimaa-county__28
Inheritance tax payments deemed invalid due to over ten years of delay in tax proceedings.
kko-other_2016_2354
Supreme Court dismisses claim for damages from illegal competition restrictions due to statute of limitations expiry.

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

Kiinnitetystä haltijavelkakirjasta aikaisemmin suoritettu leimavero oli luettava kiinnitystä haettaessa määrätyn leimaveron vähennykseksi, vaikka se kiinnitys, jonka johdosta leimavero oli aikaisemmin suoritettu, oli jo vanhentunut ja vaikka haltijavelkakirjoissa tarkoitetun velan vastattavakseen ottanut kiinnityksen kohteena olevan kiinteistön omistaja oli vaihtunut, kun tämä oli ottanut velasta vastattavakseen ennen kiinnityksen vanhentumista tapahtuneen omistajanvaihdoksen yhteydessä.

Äänestys 2-1.

Eri mieltä ollut jäsen totesi, että tilaan vahvistettu kiinnitys oli vanhentunut, tilan omistusoikeus oli ennen vanhentumishetkeä siirtynyt ja että tilan uusi omistaja oli sitoutunut vanhentumishetken jälkeen uudelleen vastaamaan velkakirjoista. Siten leimavero oli maksettava vähentämättömänä.

Leimaverolaki 45 §

Leimaverolaki 46 §

KHO 1986 II 620

KHO 1975 II 584