Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 6.2.1998 75/5 AI generated

Court rules transfer of building part constitutes taxable transfer of real property rights under transfer tax law.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 6.2.1998 75/5
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court granted a preliminary ruling confirming the obligation to pay transfer tax on the transfer of a portion of a factory building. The company argued for an exemption, but the court found the partial transfer served the property's permanent use as defined in the Transfer Tax Act. Consequently, the court determined that transferring only part of a building still constitutes a taxable transfer of real property rights.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VarainsiirtoveroL 5 § 1 mom 3 kohta; VarainsiirtoveroL 39 §: The transfer of ownership rights over a part of a building, provided it serves the property's permanent use, constitutes a taxable transfer of real property rights regardless of whether the entire building is transferred.

Keywords

AI generated
transfer tax obligation partial building transfer real property rights permanent use requirement preliminary ruling

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VarainsiirtoveroL 4 §
VarainsiirtoveroL 5 § 1 mom 3 kohta
VarainsiirtoveroL 5 § 1 mom 3 kohta
VarainsiirtoveroL 39 §
AI generated
kho-other_2026_658
Supreme Administrative Court allows appeal against administrative court dismissal of building relocation order based on private contract dispute.
kko-precedent_1990_149
Supreme Court dismisses threat of ownership transfer for building removal under Land Division Act s. 21 as unsupported by law.
admin_2000_vaasa__251
Administrative court ruled transfer tax applies only to buildings, not leasehold rights, remanding case.
admin_2003_rovaniemi__140
Court allows tax exemption for holiday home profit if used as permanent residence, ignoring building permit violations.
kho-precedent_2000_48
Supreme Administrative Court ruled that utility poles are not buildings under the Building Property Tax Act.

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

Kaupunki oli päättänyt luovuttaa yhtiölle apporttina osan

tehdasrakennuksesta. Yhtiö pyysi ennakkoratkaisua velvollisuudesta

suorittaa varainsiirtoveroa luovutuksesta.

Rakennuksen osan katsottiin palvelevan kiinteistön käyttöä

pysyvästi siten kuin varainsiirtoverolain 5 §:n 1 momentin

3 kohdassa tarkoitetaan. Rakennuksen osan omistusoikeuden

luovutuksesta oli siten luovutuksensaajan suoritettava varainsiirtovero.

Merkitystä ei ollut sillä, että luovutuksen

kohteena ei ollut koko rakennus, vaan vain osa siitä. Ennakkoratkaisu

ajaksi 23.4.1997-31.12.1998.

VarainsiirtoveroL 4 §

VarainsiirtoveroL 5 § 1 mom 3 kohta

VarainsiirtoveroL 39 §