Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion LO 22.3.1991 109/I AI generated

Inheritance tax relief denied because farm work was done for the estate, not the heirs.

Case Number Kuopion LO 22.3.1991 109/I
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The County Administrative Court dismissed the State Prosecutor's appeal against the Board of Inheritance Tax's decision to grant tax relief. The Board approved relief because the heirs, including minors, continued operating the farm using the inherited land. The court ruled that since the agricultural work was performed for the estate's benefit rather than the heirs' personal account, the statutory conditions for relief were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

PerVL 63 a §; PerVL 63 b §: Tax relief under inheritance tax law is not applicable when agricultural activities are conducted for the estate's benefit rather than for the heirs' personal account.

Keywords

AI generated
inheritance tax relief agricultural estate heirs personal account estate benefit minor heirs farm operation tax appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
PerVL 63 a §
PerVL 63 b §
AI generated
admin_1993_kuopio-county__223
Court dismissed tax assessment for farm machinery transfer as assets remained in same business source.
admin_2024_northern-finland__699
Tax court reversed tax assessment for 2019 but upheld 2014-2016 capital gains tax on shareholder loans.
kho-precedent_2010_24
Inheritance estate partner selling to sibling gains tax-free intergenerational transfer exemption under Income Tax Act.
admin_1987_kuopio-county__847
Court held that in an indivisible inheritance estate, each partner is a separate donor, not the estate itself.
admin_2016_turku__405
Administrative court ruled deceased's estate is sole forestry operator, rejecting spouse's trust protection claim for income splitting.

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

Oikeus perintö- ja lahjaverolain 63 a §:ssä tarkoitettuun

huojennukseen.

Kuolinpesän osakkaina olivat alaikäiset A ja B sekä heidän

äitinsä C. Siihen kuului useita kiinteistöjä. Perukirjassa

oli ilmoitettu, että maatilatalouden harjoittamista jatketaan

perikuntana.

Perintöverolautakunta myönsi huojennuksen.

Valtionasiamies valitti ratkaisusta ja vaati koko veron

maksuunpantavaksi. Huojennusta ei ollut myönnettävä, koska

maatilataloutta harjoitettiin kuolinpesän eikä verovelvollisten

lukuun.

Lääninoikeus katsoi A:n ja B:n jatkavan perintö- ja lahjaverolain

63 a §:ssä tarkoitetulla tavalla maatilatalouden

harjoittamista perintönä saamillaan maatiloilla. Huojennusta

koskevia säännöksiä ei siten ole sovellettu virheelli-

sesti.

PerVL 63 a §

PerVL 63 b §