What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

EstoniaRiigikohus

Riigikohus shields law firm from trustee loss, orders fee return

Riigikohus: law firm not liable for trustee's embezzlement, but must return 87,283.20 euros in fees as unjust enrichment.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 14 October 2026

Legal & Corporate

Industry: Legal activities

On 14 October 2026 the civil chamber of the Riigikohus decided case 2-21-19798, leaving the Tallinn Circuit Court's judgment of 26 August 2025 unchangedRiigikohus and dismissing both the cassation and the cross-cassation appeals. The dispute arose from the bankruptcy of Kohila tn Muuseumi Arendus OÜ: LHV Pank and the successor trustee Indrek Lepsoo sued Advokaadibüroo WIDEN OÜ (formerly LEXTAL) for loss caused by the earlier trustee Veli KraaviRiigikohus, who had worked at that bureau as a sworn advocate, and for 87,283.20 euros paid from the estate to the bureau as trustee fee and costsRiigikohus.

The chamber's first holding shields the bureau from the trustee's embezzlement lossRiigikohus Riigikohus. Kraavi made baseless payments totalling 847,972.08 eurosRiigikohus from the estate's accounts between July 2018 and August 2020, of which 717,647.08 euros remains outstanding after partial returnRiigikohus. The courts below had already held the bureau not liable, and the chamber agrees on the result while correcting the reasoning. Attribution under § 132(1) of the General Part of the Civil Code Act creates only a fiction equating another person's act with the defendant's — it needs a separate claim norm, and § 63(1) of the Bankruptcy Act imposes personal liability only on someone who is or was the trustee, which the bureau is notRiigikohus. Nor does delictual liability under § 1054(1) of the Law of Obligations Act attach: the trustee's liability flows from the special Bankruptcy Act relationship, not from delict. Liability under § 47 of the Bar Association Act fails as well, because acting as trustee is not provision of legal services within § 40(1) of that Act — the trustee is appointed by the court, not engaged by contract.

The second holding concerns LHV Pank's own damages claim of 412,413.50 eurosRiigikohus as a secured creditor left partly unsatisfied. The chamber agrees the bank has no claim against the bureauRiigikohus, but corrects the reasoning: the non-recognition of the bank's claim in Kraavi's personal bankruptcy has effect only inside that proceeding. The claim fails because, while bankruptcy is pending, compensation for estate depletion belongs to the estate, not to the creditor directly (§ 44(1) of the Bankruptcy Act), and once a trustee is replaced the creditor is not a joint creditor with the new trustee. Because Lepsoo brought that estate claim and it succeeds in this judgmentRiigikohus, LHV Pank has no remaining need for legal protection.

The third holding keeps the 87,283.20 euros with the estateRiigikohus. The county court had set Kraavi's preliminary fee at 60,000 euros plus VAT (72,000 euros) and the bureau received a further 15,283.20 euros as procedural costs — but the court later fixed the trustee's final fee at 0 euros in a binding orderRiigikohus, and no court order establishing an expense reimbursement was ever produced. The chamber holds the bureau, not Kraavi personally, is the recipient of the performance under § 1028(1) of the Law of Obligations ActRiigikohus: at the trustee's request the court sets the fee to the bureau through which the trustee acts (§ 65(1) of the Bankruptcy Act), and VAT is added when the bureau is VAT-liable — possible only if the trustee service is the bureau keeper's own economic activity. The circuit court therefore rightly ordered the bureau to return 87,283.20 euros plus default interest to the successor trusteeRiigikohus.

On costs, 43% of the cassation costs fall on Lepsoo and 57% jointly on LHV Pank and Lepsoo, the cross-cassation costs on the bureau; the county court fixes the amounts. The chamber set the case value at 876,379.65 euros.

Legal basis: PankrS §§ 44(1), 55, 63(1), 65(1); TsÜS § 132(1); VÕS §§ 1028(1), 1054(1); AdvS §§ 40(1), 47.

Where a trustee fee was paid to the bureau, check the final fee order: if the court fixed the final fee at 0 euros, reclaim what was paid without basis from the bureau.

Sources