Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 31.1.1992 135/3 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed separate valuation of related transactions to prevent tax evasion via disguised gifts.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 31.1.1992 135/3
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The administrative court rejected the State Prosecutor's request to evaluate the real estate and business sale transactions separately. The court found that both transactions occurred on the same day between companies with identical owners, indicating a single economic unit. Consequently, the court ruled that treating them as separate entities would fail to detect a tax-avoidance scheme disguised as a gift.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

PerVL 18 § 3 mom; When related transactions between entities with identical ownership occur simultaneously, they must be evaluated as a single economic unit to prevent tax evasion through disguised gifts.

Keywords

AI generated
related transactions disguised gift tax evasion identical ownership economic unit valuation method administrative court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
PerVL 18 § 3 mom
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2021:182
Supreme Administrative Court allows merger transfer tax exemption when lessees gain control of transferred property.
admin_2000_rovaniemi__208
Court held that a buyer's share of property tax is not a stamp duty deductible payment.
admin_2011_kouvola__563
Administrative court dismissed appeal; intermediary's work under company name does not automatically create employment relationship for tax withholding.
admin_2011_rovaniemi__59
Administrative court dismissed tax split due to primary purpose of tax avoidance and asset realization.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2021:183
Supreme Administrative Court allows tax exemption for property split under business income tax law without transfer tax.

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

A Oy oli myynyt tehdaskiinteistön rakennuksineen Kiinteistö

Oy B:lle ilmeiseen alihintaan. Samana päivänä

A Oy oli myynyt kysymyksessä olevalla tehdaskiinteistöllä

harjoittamansa teollisuuslaitoksen liiketoiminnan

C Oy:lle. B Oy:llä ja C Oy:llä oli ollut samat omistajat.

Koska B Oy oli selvittänyt, että liiketoiminnan

myynti C Oy:lle ja kiinteistön myynti B Oy:lle olivat

liittyneet toisiinsa, kauppoja arvosteltiin kokonaisuutena

ratkaistaessa sitä oliko B Oy saanut kiinteistökaupan

yhteydessä verotettavaa lahjaa. Valtionasiamiehen

vaatimus käsitellä kiinteistön ja liiketoiminnan luovutuksia

erikseen ja B Oy:n verottamista lahjanluontoisen

kiinteistökaupan perusteella hylättiin.

PerVL 18 § 3 mom