Legislator Case Law & Legislation
Kuopion LO 6.1.1989 9/I AI generated

Transfer of leasehold right with unfinished building triggers stamp duty if building is primary subject.

Case Number Kuopion LO 6.1.1989 9/I
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court ruled that stamp duty was due upon the transfer of a leasehold right because the unfinished building constituted the primary subject of the transaction. The parties argued over whether the 50% completion status or the land acquisition price determined the tax liability, with the County Board initially assessing a specific amount. The court decided that since the purchase price was predominantly allocated to the unfinished structure, it qualified as a taxable building under the Stamp Duty Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

LeimaveroL 26 §; LeimaveroL 1 §: Stamp duty applies to the transfer of a leasehold right when the unfinished building constitutes the primary subject of the transaction based on the allocation of the purchase price.

Keywords

AI generated
stamp duty liability unfinished building leasehold right transfer primary subject determination purchase price allocation administrative court ruling Finland tax law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
LeimaveroL 26 §
AI generated

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 vuokraoikeuden siirrosta suoritettava leimaveroa, kun

tontilla oleva rakennus oli keskeneräinen.

A ja B olivat ostaneet tontin vuokraoikeuden sillä olevine

rakennuksineen 340.000 markan kauppahinnasta. Tontilla oleva

rakennus oli keskeneräinen ja sen valmiusasteeksi ilmoitettiin

50 prosenttia. Tontin lunastushinta olisi tuolloin ollut

n. 27.000 markkaa.

Vuokraoikeuden siirrosta ilmoitettaessa kaupunginhallitus

määräsi maksettavaksi leimaveroa 20.400 markkaa.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että kun kauppahinta, huomioon ottaen

tontin lunastushinnan, kohdistui pääasiallisesti keskeneräiseen

rakennukseen, tuota rakennusta oli pidettävä leimaverolaissa

tarkoitettuna rakennuksena.

LeimaveroL 26 §