Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Hämeen LO 16.10.1997 549/1 AI generated

Court dismisses appeal regarding forest tax system application due to insufficient evidence of payment obligation.

Case Number Hämeen LO 16.10.1997 549/1
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 appeal concerning the application of the forest tax system to a forest estate inherited by brothers. The brothers argued that the tax system should apply because they failed to pay a 100,000 mark sum to the testator's brother, despite receiving the forest as a conditional legacy. The court rejected this claim because the brothers' receipt of the forest was primarily based on the payment of the specified sum, rendering the condition for the alternative tax system unmet.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Tuloverolaki 140 § 3 mom; The court established that the forest tax system applies only when the recipient's acquisition of the forest is primarily gratuitous, excluding cases where the acquisition is conditioned on the fulfillment of a monetary obligation.

Keywords

AI generated
forest tax system inheritance tax conditional legacy gratuitous acquisition Tuloverolaki 140 administrative appeal forest estate valuation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Tuloverolaki 140 § 3 mom
Tuloverolaki 140 § 3 mom
AI generated
admin_1991_northern-karelia-county__766
Administrative court dismisses tax exemption claim for forest income when a perpetual right holder is deceased.
admin_1986_mikkeli-county__1052
Inheritance tax board's valuation of forest land was reduced to 1984 wealth tax basis value.
admin_2011_vaasa__677
Court dismisses inheritance transfer tax claim where payment was made to heirs for estate assets.
admin_2015_eastern-finland__1608
Inheritance tax liability arises upon death when legacy recipient becomes owner, even before will takes effect.
kko-precedent_1987_111
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; testamentary area allocation is only a placement guide, not a division basis.

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

Veljekset olivat saaneet vuonna 1994 kuolleen enonsa jälkeen testamentilla perintönä kaksi kiinteistöä. Lisätestamentissa oli määrätty veljeksille yhteisesti noin 17 hehtaarin metsäpalsta ehdolla, että nämä suorittavat testamentin tekijän veljelle 100 000 markkaa. Metsästä sittemin saatujen puun myyntitulojen perusteella lääninoikeus arvioi metsätilan arvoksi vähintään 400 000 markkaa. Koska veljesten saanto edellä mainitusta 100 000 markan suorituksesta huolimatta oli pääasiassa vastikkeeton, kysymyksessä olevaan metsään oli sovellettava metsän edellisen omistajan valitsemaa metsäverojärjestelmää.

Verovuosi 1994.

Tuloverolaki 140 § 3 mom