Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KHO:1997:112 AI generated

Supreme Administrative Court dismisses tax refund claim when new application relies on conflicting court interpretation.

Case Number KHO:1997:112
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the taxpayer's repeated refund application for stamp duty. The applicant submitted a new claim based on a different legal interpretation issued by the Administrative Court in a separate matter. The court ruled that the tax authority was correct to reject the request because the new application contradicted the established judicial interpretation in the other case.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

LeimaveroL 95 §; A taxpayer's repeated application for a stamp duty refund must be rejected if the new application relies on a legal interpretation from a different case that contradicts the interpretation previously applied by the administrative court.

Keywords

AI generated
stamp duty refund repeated application conflicting interpretation administrative court tax authority discretion separate case precedent LeimaveroL 95

Cited Legislation

AI generated
LeimaveroL 95 §
AI generated
admin_1986_kyme-county__279
Administrative court dismissed company's stamp tax refund claim because it was procedurally a complaint, not an application.
admin_1994_central-finland-county__986
Social assistance appeal dismissed; lack of special investigation despite no claim of exhausted funds.
kho-precedent_2014_81
Supreme Court quashes Market Court ruling for failing to remand electricity regulation case to agency.
admin_2023_turku__1348
Migration court allows new asylum claim when prior facts were not covered in previous proceedings.
kho-precedent_2015_101
Court dismisses appeal regarding environmental permit condition expiry due to legislative change. The court held that a specific condition for plan submission did not constitute a mandatory review obligation. The court ruled that the condition was not a review obligation subject to legislative change. The court found no grounds to alter the administrative court's decision based on the case facts. The court determined the condition was not a review obligation under the new law. The court concluded the condition was not a review obligation under the new law.

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

Lääninveroviraston tuli jättää toistamiseen tehty velkakirjasta suoritetun leimaveron palautushakemus tutkimatta, kun uusi hakemus perustui hallintotuomioistuimen muussa asiassa antamaan toisenlaisen tulkinnan sisältävään ratkaisuun.

LeimaveroL 95 §