KHO: tax set on exact Customs data is not assessment-based taxation

The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) holds in precedent KHO:2026:75 that excise duty is not imposed by estimation where Verohallinto can quantify it directly from precise information received from Tulli on the quantities and types of imported excise goods, even though the taxpayer filed no return.Finlex In that situation the 25 per cent tax increase (veronkorotus) for assessed tax does not applyFinlex, and the basic 10 per cent rate standsFinlex.

The case concerned alcohol and beverage-packaging excise on a large consignment of alcoholic beverages found in a van arriving from Tallinn at Helsinki's Länsisatama on 28 May 2021. By decisions of 17 August 2023 Verohallinto imposed alkoholi- ja alkoholijuomavero of 1,962.02 euro and juomapakkausvero of 340.63 euro, plus a 25 per cent increase on the taxes for failure to meet the filing duty. The Tax Adjustment Board rejected the claims on 9 September 2024, but the Helsinki Administrative Court, by decision 3025/2025 of 12 May 2025, annulled the increase decisions in part and reduced the increases to 10 per cent of the taxes imposed. The KHO granted the Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö leave to appeal but dismissed it, leaving the outcome unchanged.

The decisive distinction is between the two layers of the assessment. The evaluation under 72 §:n 2 momentti of the valmisteverotuslaki concerned only the purpose for which the products were imported and the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence on it — whether part of the consignment had been brought in for commercial or other business purposes. The amount of tax itself rested directly on undisputed evidence of the products' quantities and types obtained in Tulli's internal-border inspection of the vehicle combined with the hearing of the taxpayer. Where the information needed to impose the tax is available in that form, the 43 § situation where information needed from the taxpayer is missing does not ariseFinlex; here no such information was requested from the taxpayer either. Imposition of the tax therefore did not occur arvioimalla within the meaning of 43 §Finlex, and it was not arvioverotus within the meaning of 38 §:n 3 momenttiFinlex.

As a result, the 25 per cent rate for tax assessed by estimation could not be imposed under 38 §:n 3 momenttiFinlex. Because no other grounds were presented for departing from the basic level of the increase in 38 §:n 1 momenttiFinlex, the Administrative Court's reduction of the increases to 10 per cent of the taxes imposed standsFinlex. A missed excise return still triggers an increase under 37 §, but the 25 per cent rate requires genuine estimationFinlex; precise third-party quantity data takes the assessment outside itFinlex.

On procedure, the KHO finds that the Administrative Court should not have decided the taxpayer's appeal without hearing the Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikköFinlex. Under 66 §:n 2 momentti that shortcut is available only where at most 6,000 euro turns on the taxpayer's claim and the matter is not open to interpretation or unclearFinlex; here assessment-based taxation was the central interpretive issue, the Administrative Court panel had split, and that court had published its decision in Finlex. The error was a hearing defect that would ordinarily annul the decision and remand the case, but because the unit stated its position before the KHO, the KHO neither annulled nor remanded on that groundFinlex.

The decision cites laki oma-aloitteisten verojen verotusmenettelystä (768/2016) 38 §:n 3 momentti and 43 §:n 1 momentti; the 25 per cent rate under the former did not applyFinlex, so the 10 per cent rate under 38 §:n 1 momentti stoodFinlex, alongside valmisteverotuslaki 72 §:n 2 momentti on the assessment of use purpose.