Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 15.10.1998 860/5 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed tax claim due to statute of limitations and lack of enforcement action.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 15.10.1998 860/5
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 state's claim for stamp duty on a property purchase. The parties argued the debt was validly incurred in 1984 but never enforced according to statutory timelines. The court ruled the claim was time-barred because the tax authority failed to initiate collection proceedings within the required ten-year period.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VanhA 1 §; VanhA 2 §: The right to claim stamp duty is extinguished by limitation if the tax authority fails to enforce the debt within the prescribed period.

Keywords

AI generated
stamp duty limitation tax enforcement period statute of limitations administrative claim tax authority duty

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VanhA 1 §
VanhA 2 §
AI generated
kho-precedent_2000_53
Statute of limitations bars state from collecting stamp duty when tax authority fails to act within prescribed time limits.
kho-precedent_1997_100
Tax authority barred from correcting 1990 dividend impact on 1991 tax surplus after 1994 decision.
admin_1997_kuopio-county__238
Taxpayer's choice of forest tax system for 1993-2005 validly prevents tax authority from changing 1994 assessment via tax agent appeal.
admin_2000_turku__540
Administrative court orders tax authority to refund stamp duty where land transferor was not legally required to register title.
admin_1990_mikkeli-county__577
Court dismisses tax adjustment claim as prior assessment already had legal force.

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

H ja A olivat ostaneet kahdella eri kauppakirjalla kaksi

määräalaa, jotka yhdessä muodostivat tilan. Omistusoikeus

viimeksi ostettuun määräalaan ja siten koko tilaan oli

siirtynyt H:lle ja A:lle 19.1.1984.

Leimaverovelkasuhde oli syntynyt 19.1.1984. Veronsaajataho

ei ollut edes väittänyt, että verosaatavaa olisi verovelkasuhteen

syntymisen jälkeen kymmeneen vuoteen valvottu sillä

tavoin kuin määräajasta velkomisasioissa sekä julkisesta

haasteesta velkojille annetussa asetuksessa on säädetty.

Leimaveroa ei ollut maksuunpantu H:n ja A:n maksettavaksi.

Valtion oikeus leimaveron saamiseen oli siten jo vanhentunut

lainhuutoa tilaan 5.5.1997 haettaessa.

VanhA 1 §

VanhA 2 §

KHO:n päätös: A:22.11.1999 T:3127 : Ei muutoksenhakulupaa