Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 30.03.1971 26/71 AI generated

Court dismisses appeal against tax assessment due to defective complaint lacking required recipient identification.

Case Number Vaasan HO 30.03.1971 26/71
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Administrative Board's decision to dismiss the appeal because the complaint failed to identify the tax collector to whom it was addressed. The Board had relied on Section 1 of the Tax Collection Act to reject the incomplete submission without further examination. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Lapland Regional Administrative Board for handling without notice to prevent unnecessary delay.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 1 of the Tax Collection Act; A tax collection appeal must explicitly name the tax collector to whom it is directed, and failure to do so renders the appeal procedurally defective, warranting the quashing of the dismissal decision and transfer to a competent authority.

Keywords

AI generated
tax collection appeal procedural defect defective complaint tax collector identification transfer of case Regional Administrative Board Tax Collection Act

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 1 of the Tax Collection Act
AI generated
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__257
Court dismissed appeal against tax authority's rejection of execution suspension request under specific statute.
admin_2000_oulu__497
Administrative court dismissed appeal as inadmissible due to jurisdictional error and improper venue.
kko-precedent_2012_8
Supreme Court dismisses state's liability to pay debtor's court costs after seizure was revoked by self-correction.
kko-precedent_2012_34
Supreme Court allows third party's appeal costs against state when seizure lacks sufficient legal basis.
admin_1993_uusimaa-county__947
Administrative court dismissed appeal as filed late due to statutory time limit rules.

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

Sodankylän nimismiespiirissä toimitettuun ulosmittaukseen tyytymätön haki muutosta Oulun lääninhallituksessa. Oulun lääninhallitus jätti UL 1:1,1 nojalla valituksen tutkimatta. Koska ulosottomiehen antama valitusosoitus oli sikäli puutteellinen, ettei siinä ollut mainittu, mille ulosotonhaltijalle valitus ulosmittauksesta oli tehtävä, hovioikeus kumosi lääninhallituksen päätöksen ja siirsi viivytyksen välttämiseksi asian Lapin lääninhallitukseen ilmoituksetta käsiteltäväksi.

Lainvoimainen