Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Oulun LO 22.11.1991 776/I AI generated

Court dismissed stamp duty refund claim as share transfer constituted taxable instrument under stamp duty act.

Case Number Oulun LO 22.11.1991 776/I
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 taxpayer's request for a refund of stamp duty paid on share purchases. The tax authority had argued that the transfer was void because the relevant stamp duty provision was repealed, rendering the payment erroneous. However, the court determined that the transaction fell squarely within the definition of a taxable instrument under the stamp duty act, thereby upholding the original tax liability.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

LeimaveroL 54 §; LeimaveroL 55 §: The court held that the transfer of shares constitutes a taxable instrument under the stamp duty act, and the repeal of a specific provision does not negate the tax obligation if the transaction remains within the act's scope.

Keywords

AI generated
stamp duty liability share transfer taxation tax refund denial instrument definition administrative court ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
LeimaveroL 54 §
LeimaveroL 55 §
LeimaveroL 95 §
AI generated
admin_1990_kuopio-county__96
Court held share transfer tax not due as shares were not defined under tax law.
admin_1989_hame-county__906
Court allows stamp duty refund when partnership members receive shares as profit distribution, not taxable exchange.
admin_1990_northern-karelia-county__857
Stamp duty refund denied when transfer value differs from consideration due to statutory calculation rules.
kho-precedent_2016_104
Finnish Supreme Administrative Court allows gift tax deduction for retained fund assets despite equal shareholder rights.
admin_1995_central-finland-county__787
Court allowed company's appeal, ruling shareholder income cannot be taxed as employee income for social security purposes.

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

Asunto-osakeyhtiö oli korottanut osakepääomaansa. Uudet osakkeet

oikeuttivat hallitsemaan huoneistoa, joka oli aikaisemmin

ollut yhtiön omistuksessa ja hallinnassa talonmiehen

asuntona. A oli ostanut merkintäsopimukseksi nimetyllä asiakirjalla

yhtiöltä sanotut osakkeet ja suorittanut osakkeiden

kauppahinnan mukaisen leimaveron. Lääninverovirasto määräsi

A:n hakemuksesta leimaveron palautettavaksi, koska osakekirjan

antamista koskeva leimaverolain 33 § oli kumottu ja leimavero

siten oli suoritettu erehdyksessä aiheettomasti.

Lääninoikeus verotusasiamiehen valituksesta katsoi, että kysymyksessä

oli leimaverolain 55 §:n mukainen arvopapereiden

luovutus, josta oli suoritettava leimavero. Lääninoikeus kumosi

lääninveroviraston päätöksen ja hylkäsi A:n hakemuksen.

LeimaveroL 54 §

LeimaveroL 55 §

LeimaveroL 95 §