---
title: "How Inheritance Tax Drives Wealth Out of Finland | Janne Juusela"
titleOriginal: "Verojuristi: perintövero ajaa varakkaat pois Suomesta | Janne Juusela | Neuvottelija 395"
episodeNumber: "395"
guest: "Janne Juusela"
datePublished: 2026-07-14
duration: "59:59"
youtube: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE"
captionsVtt: https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/734-verojuristi-perintovero-ajaa-varakkaat-pois-suomesta-janne-j/captions.en.vtt
captionsSrt: https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/734-verojuristi-perintovero-ajaa-varakkaat-pois-suomesta-janne-j/captions.en.srt
originalLanguage: "fi"
topics: ["ownership_capital_tax","finnish_economy_policy"]
subtitleMethod: "claude-fi-to-en-cue-preserving-translation"
provenance: "local SBV curated by Sami Miettinen (Neuvottelija-Subtitles folder)"
fiCanonical: "https://www.neuvottelija.fi/fi/episodes/734-verojuristi-perintovero-ajaa-varakkaat-pois-suomesta-janne-j"
canonical: https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/734-verojuristi-perintovero-ajaa-varakkaat-pois-suomesta-janne-j/
---
# How Inheritance Tax Drives Wealth Out of Finland | Janne Juusela

## Chapters

- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=0s) Guest: tax lawyer Janne Juusela
- [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=70s) Overall assessment of the Orpo government's tax decisions
- [02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=131s) The marginal tax rate dropped from 59 percent to 52 percent
- [03:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=186s) Transfer tax and the streamlining of additional purchase price taxation
- [04:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=276s) Additional purchase prices and risk-sharing in company acquisitions
- [06:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=369s) The share exchange reform and the cash consideration limit
- [07:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=470s) The 'massimuijapykälä' and inflating net wealth
- [10:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=621s) The ability-to-pay principle as a cornerstone of taxation
- [11:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=664s) Dividend taxation of unlisted companies
- [13:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=802s) Juusela's model: a total tax rate of 30 percent
- [14:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=893s) Capital income tax and inflation in international comparison
- [16:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=994s) Sweden abolished inheritance tax in 2004
- [17:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1065s) The government's biggest downside was that inheritance tax remained
- [18:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1099s) A proposal for a 0.5 percent gift tax
- [19:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1183s) The practical ability-to-pay problems of inheritance tax
- [21:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1294s) The wealthy are moving out of Finland because of inheritance tax
- [24:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1473s) Generational transfers and the limits of tax relief
- [26:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1607s) Corporate tax is cut to 18 percent
- [28:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1698s) Problems with the tax exemption for fixed-asset shares
- [29:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1753s) The general anti-avoidance rule and predictability
- [31:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1871s) The stock option tax reform: tax only paid upon sale
- [35:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2120s) YEL and the unreasonableness of assessed taxation
- [36:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2170s) Legal-protection problems in taxation and EVA's report
- [38:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2313s) Redemption disputes and the special case of a golf club share
- [40:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2414s) Case law and the role of precedents
- [43:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2581s) Does Finland need a constitutional court
- [46:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2779s) Fundamental rights and the protection of property in taxation
- [48:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2938s) Arbitration in commercial disputes
- [52:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3172s) AI is changing the work of lawyers
- [57:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3424s) Legal spamming in the age of AI
- [59:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3565s) Closing words and moving to Neuvottelija Sisäpiiri

## Summary

Tax lawyer and Doctor of Laws Janne Juusela and Sami Miettinen assess the tax decisions of the Orpo government from the perspectives of a top lawyer and an investment banker. The cut in the marginal tax rate to 52 percent, the streamlining of the transfer tax and the reform of share exchanges earn praise, but Juusela sees the biggest downside as the government's failure to dare abolish inheritance tax along the Swedish model. The episode covers the 'massimuijapykälä', dividend taxation of unlisted companies, the cut in corporate tax to 18 percent, and the reform of stock option taxation, under which tax is paid only when the shares are sold. Finally, they discuss legal-protection problems in taxation, the need for a constitutional court, and how AI is changing the work of lawyers.

## Transcript

*English transcript derived from validated English subtitles ([WebVTT](https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/734-verojuristi-perintovero-ajaa-varakkaat-pois-suomesta-janne-j/captions.en.vtt) · [SRT](https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/734-verojuristi-perintovero-ajaa-varakkaat-pois-suomesta-janne-j/captions.en.srt)). Timestamps link to the original video.*

[**00:00**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=0s) All right, welcome to the Neuvottelija channel. Welcome, Janne Juusela, one of Finland's toughest tax lawyers, actually a doctor of law. And I remember back in 2014, when we wrote the Libera book How Finland Can Be Saved, it had this concept called the Juusela model. So you're kind of a legend in these tax matters. Welcome. Thanks for the invite. Yeah, and actually that Juusela model, people don't talk about it that much, but I remember there were these kinds of, uh, insights, that for example, like, inflation shouldn't be taxed, I mean, uh, generally at all, you shouldn't tax, like, cash, and not like dreams or the tax authority's greed, and these kinds of principles I would respect and hope that the tax authority and the politicians too would bring to the table. Yeah, I do need to clarify one thing, that it was actually for the elinkeinoelämän valtuuskunta (EVA), when I did this in 2014, this thing, where this Juusela model was, but I've also done a lot with Libera, various studies and other things, so

[**01:00**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=60s) yeah, this was, because it was at the same time — I was writing, well, a book for Libera, so we borrowed that content fresh and then modified it a bit, because it wasn't quite perfect after all. Yeah, but, uh, let's start now with this right-wing government's structural changes, especially the decisions related to taxation, and I'm actually quite glad, there's sort of, like, investment banking background here, his client base has nevertheless been tried to be understood here like this over these three years and, hasn't, hasn't, uh, these have here mainly been good, what's come out of it? Well yeah, if you think about this tax policy here, here then yes, a lot, a lot of, uh, good things have been done, and quite significant things. Probably the most important, the most important thing is that, uh, earned income taxation could be eased, and especially that progressivity, which has been the biggest, biggest problem in that earned income taxation. That is, that extra work is taxed very harshly. In Finland, internationally, it hasn't been — if you look at

[**02:03**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=123s) the taxation of low earners or middle earners, then our taxation hasn't been all that, that harsh after all. But then already at middle income levels or even below middle income levels, then that, that taxing of extra work, that is that progressivity has been internationally sky-high. And now, now the Orpo government made a really significant, significant, uh, decision and lowered the highest marginal tax rates now to 52%, which is, which is definitely, like, a hat-worthy achievement. That's right. So, worthy [laughter] also hat-worthy. So, uh, that, from 59 to like 52, that was like a significant move. Of course you should aim to get below 50, but this was like, for once, they dared to do it, and, and that's good. Then on the capital side a lot of good things have been done. I mean, like I said at the start, you shouldn't estimate tax — you shouldn't, uh, tax in advance, and you shouldn't like that by taxing things that you actually want more of, than, say, capital or wealth or, or work, and this isn't, like,

[**03:05**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=185s) understood. So let's take one example now, that this, uh, quite like the stamp duty, uh, on that share transaction, before this right-wing government, was taxed like a bit in advance, the whole purchase sum was taxed, especially in advance, with that fairly small 1.5% tax, but still a bit, assuming that, yes, these, say, additional purchase prices from here will come, so let's just take it upfront to be safe. Mm. Let's go through that, so how did this change, so that it has, has, has been changed now so that, that only once, uh, finally the amount of the additional purchase price is confirmed, only at that point then is the additional purchase price taxed. Up to, up to now it's been a bit like a gray area, and the taxpayer has been required to provide various reports and other things, and quite often it's actually been taxed already before there was full certainty whether that additional purchase price would materialize. This is, this is a welcome reform, as such it sounds like a fairly small technical reform,

[**04:09**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=249s) but it creates clarity and predictability, and specifically, like you said, so, so it follows that principle, that taxation only happens at the point when it flows into the cash and is realized. Yeah. So so it's the ability-to-pay principle. That's right. Now, for example, if there's been agreed that there's a company sale, that comes to, say, 10 million as the base purchase price in cash at closing, and then there can be, say, a variation, that five times next year's, uh, EBITDA, the portion exceeding a certain level, so that can be like a range, so then previously you've had to kind of estimate whether it's [laughter] now, then, what will materialize from that, and take that view in advance and pay tax on it as well. Now it's such that if from that range, say, 5 million comes out, then on those five million, that, uh, tax is paid. And not on the random stuff, if nothing comes at all, then you don't pay any tax at all, so this is, in my opinion, a really sensible principle, and it also encourages a bit, uh, creating also that kind of structure, where both parties' interests are taken into account even though I'm not really a fan of it as such, but it's often, like,

[**05:13**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=313s) a good way to share that future uncertainty's risk. Yes, yes, yes, it is nevertheless a really common mechanism and understandable. It really does help, like, getting deals done. So, so, uh, there's this kind of mechanism, with which you can then make sure that that business is in that, that kind of condition, and, and also that future turns out to be the kind that was envisioned back at the time of the deal at the time of the deal. Yeah, that's right, and let's continue with this theme, namely share acquisition. This now is legal jargon, sometimes it goes a little wrong anyway, so always correct me if it does, uh, since you you know the exact terms, and I as an investment banker always tend a bit to just wing it in that direction sometimes. This is, by the way, a common division of labor generally in company sales, that I get forgiven if I use the wrong legal term, but you get forgiven less. So, so, uh, share acqui- — that is the other way then, uh, to get into the same boat, that if you have, say,

[**06:15**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=375s) a current owner, who sells the firm to another, and then, say, they want to combine them, or they just want, otherwise, this current owner's group to continue, then in this old model, wasn't it the case that you had to actually break off this share acquisition, take the money, pay as much as 34% to the tax authority, this capital gains tax, then, uh, on the original acquisition price or other, uh, computed price's difference, and then with that like drastically shrunken net, uh, money, buy then those new shares — so this was again sensibly reformed here. Mm. Mm. So do you mean this share exchange? Share exchange. Yeah, yeah. Well yeah. It, it was reformed exactly so that, that for example the cash consideration limit was then raised, but even so there still is, is, that it was raised to 50%, but it's calculated from the share's nominal value. So it doesn't necessarily always, always bring, still, still, uh,

[**07:16**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=436s) relief to these, these situations, but, uh, the share exchange provision was also changed at the same time, same time, so that, that it was made possible, that a party to a share exchange can also be non-EU companies or individuals. So, so, so in that way, the share exchange's application was expanded, although then, the same, the engine here in this reform was this, this massimuija massimuija, uh, provision, with which it was inten- -ded, or the intention was to prevent that, that, that a limited company's, like, net assets could be inflated by doing a share exchange with an operating business company. So, so, that, that the operating business company is transferred there, there under the new holding company, in which case if the operating company's fair value can be shown to be clearly higher than the taxable value, then, then

[**08:17**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=497s) into that new holding company you could get, get the highest net assets, and through that you could then distribute, distribute tax-free dividends. So this was, this this, this, uh, this massi- massim- [cut off] massimuija idea. But in that connection, indeed, the share exchange rules were also otherwise changed ah, I thought that, that these were, or there could also be other motivations. I just remember, uh, once I did — I was on the Metso team at SCB, we were uh, [scoff] we made, uh, a share exchange offer for that Tamfelt, so then we had to calculate like crazy, whether that 10%, uh, would be enough for those cents, that you then need, like, for those divisions, and this kind of, like, total nonsense, so okay, so if now this, uh, it's still book-value, uh, that 50 percent, not 10 percent, but then at least, like, these kinds of, like, completely ridiculous, uh Yeah, yeah. or micro-calculations, like, disappear. That's true. Yeah. I mean, yes, in many worlds there might be, uh, there might then be, uh, that it's accepted, like, quite, quite outright

[**09:20**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=560s) just, like, entirely, like, a share exchange as such, one hundred percent a rollover, for as long as until cash comes in. Yeah, and this, in my opinion, uh, would be, that, that would be the sensible principle, that then, like, you do those deals against money, and not, like, settle this, like, sort of, greed. I — in my opinion this is sort of also a general I mean, kind of like a media and left-wing delusion, that people might have, like, quite, quite, uh, with a straight face, these kinds of claims, that, uh, there is, is, like, this kind of unrealized income, that now should every year, always, like, somehow get, like, cashed in. And there is, like, some sense to it, that then some, some, like, endless jackpot might remain, like, completely unclaimed, and then, uh, the person in question just walks off, say, elsewhere, and then, uh, you're left outside Finland's borders. So even, I mean, in that silly exit-tax thinking there's like some grain of sense, but usually this is based just on, like, trying to, like, milk it in advance, that uh, the golden eggs, uh, my — or I don't know if you can milk those geese. Yeah

[**10:20**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=620s) [laughter] yeah, in my opinion an important feature of a good tax system is, that, that only realized appreciation in value is taxed, and it follows, like, the ability-to-pay principle. So, so only once it's realized as cash money, then it should be taxed, like, as a main rule, that it's in my opinion a sound principle as the main rule in taxation. Yeah. Yeah. But then that massimuija provision, I mean, as such, uh, the background to it is that [clears throat] a bad-faith interpretation isn't, like, any particular operational reason to, like, increase that share substance's, uh, mathematically calculated value, so that this, this, like, is then used as the basis for a low dividend payment. So isn't it like that, 8% of that substance, which, uh, leads at most to that substance which is 150,000, like, in dividends, so is it now then something like 1.6 million and change, so uh, you've then been able to pay it at the 7.5% dividend tax rate, then the idea has been

[**11:24**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=684s) been a bit like that, well even though the company's, like, real value doesn't like, require it, so this kind of calculation is made, that this, this substance is brought up to that 1.6 million and change. Dividends can be paid, so this is now what's being tried to be solved here, and as a side effect then all kinds of other, other ripples come then, legal order — as such, in that, these social media influencers have acted, as such, quite in line with the system in force, and those, the operating company's shares have as such been valued correctly, and the tax authority too has often accepted that. It's a matter of the system having structural flaws, and now, now this one symptom is what they wanted to address, that the clearest thing would be that uh, the dividend tax system would be reformed to be simpler and more neutral, and then there would never have been any need to do anything like trying with share exchanges to get, get net assets increased. Yeah. This actually goes back, uh, at one time uh, I once went to [unclear] business school, and there was

[**12:27**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=747s) this kind of, uh, homecoming day, and, uh, professor emeritus Niskakangas was there, so I went right, like, to see him, like, in person, just so that I could get to tease him about this, uh, avoir fiscal change, that this now goes back into ancient history, but back in the day we did have this kind of really good and easygoing system called avoir fiscal, in which, uh, this personal and corporate taxation were combined into this kind of seamless pipeline, which then maximized the incentives both for the company to make a profit, and for the shareholder to bring this taxable capital income to the state's coffers and into their own pocket, and then this was broken, and for mysterious reasons, and then, uh, this kind of artificial split was made, which I don't know if it exists much elsewhere in the world, that there's like listed and unlisted companies, so this is, in my opinion, like, quite a really strange structure, that, like, haunts us in the background. And but not worth breaking it in a way that, like, it gets crapped up like, toward maximum benefit. The model that I've actually proposed

[**13:28**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=808s) already back in 2014, or even before that in some contexts, is specifically this, that you'd simulate the same end result as avoir fiscal, but much more simply. So the end result would be that, that the total tax rate on distributed profit is always the same as the capital income tax rate. Mm, 30% m and, and, uh, and then also, also all companies would be treated the same way, there'd be no difference between a listed and unlisted company. And this, well, this discussion has been just about that, quite many, I mean, really widely support a neutral and simple model as such, but then the differences there — my view is that it should be neutral and simple, but it also has to be competitive and encourage growth, that kind of model. So I'm talking about that total tax rate of 30. In many circles, though, they talk about it, that it should be at the level where the total tax rate on listed dividends is currently above,

[**14:29**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=869s) clearly above 40. So, so this is the, the reason why somehow reform projects have apparently, like, stalled. This kind of, I mean, neutral, simple dividend tax model, well, recently, for example, many business organizations have supported it, but, but then, the political debate apparently concerns, clearly concerns that, that, like, the level — what, what, what that total tax rate should then be. Yeah. And then [sigh] [deep breath] this kind of, uh, some European Tax Foundation, uh, according to a comparison, this 34% top tax rate on capital is, uh, Europe's — and probably also the world's third highest, so in a way there's this kind of, like, left-wing delusion, that because we've gotten used to those 59 and 52 now, marginal tax rates, on the labor side somehow nobody, like, looks at all at how these other countries in the world tax this capital, and, well, we do have a really tight tax base — in many countries there are nominal, like, tax rates, but then

[**15:30**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=930s) a lot of exceptions and tax exemptions, for example after certain holding periods. So and compared to wage income [deep breath] with wage income there isn't that kind of inflation effect, the way, the way the same way as with capital income, especially, like, capital gains, that if you've owned, owned, uh, held for several years, and under these kinds of normal conditions, when we also have inflation in the economy, then then indeed that kind of taxation really tightens up very, very harshly at some 34% nominal tax rate. Yeah, that's right, you can understand that wages are always paid for that current month's work, and, and, like, but then like, the main portion might have inflation adjustments made to wages. That's how it is, and, but I mean then with investing there might be, say, a 30- year delay, in which case then that money from 30 years ago is, like, uh, if it's taxed like entirely on that increase in between, which is purely inflation, then it, well, it could, say, in real terms be

[**16:32**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=992s) zero profit or even a loss, but still, still, still, uh, then the nominal profit can be, be significantly large. Yeah. Then, uh, in Europe's more successful capital market, that is Sweden, there's then also been made a long time ago, uh, in 2004, this kind of reform, that inheritance and gift taxes are, uh, subject to capital income tax, and not, not, uh this kind of separate inheritance-gift tax's, uh, wealth-tax valuation. So those receipts can be left uninterrupted, uh, so that, and because of that people's, like, holding periods are, like, considerably longer, and longer than in Finland. And then somewhat older gentlemen and ladies have, like, an incentive still to invest, because it's not, like, so obvious that that holding gets cut off like, at the heir's neck by cash-payable inheritance taxes. Yeah. Right, right, this, this is, in my opinion, the same phenomenon, that we maybe haven't understood. This debate that we're having around here is really naive around it. Yeah, yeah. Yes, it was, like, my

[**17:33**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1053s) opinion, like, this government's biggest minus was that, in tax policy, that that, that inheritance and gift taxation, then, wasn't dared to be abolished. There's still so much evidence from our neighboring country, Sweden, that, uh, that it back then had practically only positive effects, also on total tax revenue. Of course, after a small, small, uh, initial dip, but — and how much it has has, has, like, strengthened that, like, ownership, and increased Sweden's competitiveness, and for its part also increased this kind of, like, [scoff] blue-and-yellow capitalism — these knock-on effects are, like, significant. At that event was the Chamber of Commerce's CEO Juho Romakkanen, mind — this was being deliberated, so I then, uh, improvised on the fly this kind of thing, that now Riikka Purra and her associates surely won't bother to reopen this, the inheritance tax, that there's that 7.5-thousand, like, tax-free portion, and then there's that 30-thousand, uh,

[**18:37**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1117s) inheritance tax's, like, tax-free portion for this gift tax and inheritance tax, but I say that now you could, uh, get some jingling money into the state's coffers, by doing like, on the portion exceeding these, like, uh, to that gift tax, that with a stamp duty you could then, uh, top it up, say, for relatives then, uh, for direct heirs then, uh, say with that half-percent, that gift tax, and from that you'd immediately get more tax into the state's coffers, that [scoff] right, right, this could still be done within this government's term. It wouldn't be such a huge deal, since, if somehow it feels like the inheritance tax is now like a taboo during this government term, then this kind of small technical tax change could then [clears throat] bring, um, that, in a way, also that, like, circulation of capital. Because then it remains like, from individual people it could there, for others then, already a bit in advance, so that you don't have to then, there, on the other side, the other side of the grave make all those capital transfers, which then might — the dying person's, uh, risk profile, like, changes, and their cognition worsens, so maybe not even

[**19:40**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1180s) AI could help there. So this, this, this would be, like, useful. But this kind of amazing proposal. I don't know if there's political hope for it now, but if Riikka Purra, if you're listening here, then that half-percent, uh, gift tax top-up tax, still bring it into use here. Yeah, on that topic still, inheritance and gift taxation, so it's been quite a strange feature [scoff] in this Finnish debate, that, that it's gained a significant position, like, as an argument, that if inheritance and gift taxation is abolished, then in some situations this, this heir's uh, taxation might actually increase. I mean, if, if you then sell quickly after that, that this, of course, always when you make changes to the tax system, then of course these kinds of situations can come up, but, but the essential thing is, that it is — it's in the heir's [scoff] like own hands. Because of taxes, you don't need to, because of the inheritance tax, no one has to sell, because it wouldn't exist anymore. And then if you do sell, then you get cash in hand, with which you can then pay that capital gains tax, so yeah, that's right. And then we could also

[**20:45**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1245s) push for a transition period for these, these current, uh, exceptions, say that 30 thousand, if that then bothers people. But I mean, that was like, even that, uh, Wat's paper was like just outrageously bad, because it didn't deal with like [scoff] business ownership at all. It focused on something like real estate, and, uh, and then, again, what I just remember from it is uh, the then chief economist of Suomen Yrittäjät then made exactly that calculation, that compared — assumed that at the moment of death everyone would sell with this new system immediately, uh, at the capital income tax rate, and tax would result, whereas you often have, like, those, uh, tax-free thresholds, so, and then ended up then with this rather strange, like, statement, that, um, uh, for entrepreneurs, that inheritance tax change was harmful, even though here there are two different tax subjects. That's the deceased entrepreneur, and then their heirs, but yeah. But this was like just hallucination, this whole debate. I don't know how much, I mean, this kind of like, as a doctor of law, do you see this debate as absurd, or

[**21:48**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1308s) do you have this kind of gentle view of these people, that, that everyone is trying to understand these things from their own point of view. Well yeah. I mean, yes, I of course, all arguments, uh, they need to be, as such, appreciated and evaluated, like, like, quite with a clean slate. What I see, like, right in my work is that from Finland's point of view this is a worrying situation, that, that, uh, so many wealthy individuals and families are leaving Finland, and of course there are, are other reasons too, but yes, this inheritance and gift taxation is, I would dare say, the biggest single reason why, why people move, move away, uh, from Finland, so, so because of that — and that's not the only reason to — inheritance and gift taxation should be abolished, by no means. In my opinion, problems also arise quite among ordinary people, who get, get, uh, inheritances or gifts

[**22:51**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1371s) and, and, uh, those inheritances and gifts often aren't any cash money, but the tax still has to be paid regardless. So, uh, there's both this kind of like, fairness and ability-to-pay problem, and then also a competitive- competitiveness problem. That's right. And then, once again, that like, scrambling around with the tax, like, you can see it from the fact that the estate has to right away draw up the estate inventory, and it has to immediately pay up to the tax authority, and then be divided. And whereas then, say, in the Swedish model, that, like, in a way, it isn't isn't such an acute thing, that it's — you can, like, look at it and calmly, like, not, not panic, and then make a sensible plan, whether to sell something, or over time, and then, uh, against that you get cash flows when you sell, and then you pay the taxes. This is, like, in many ways much calmer and sensible, and likewise then, uh, you don't need to panic — that, uh, dying person, that they, like, in advance have to, like, stress about what this now, uh, bomb — if, say, they're, like, an unlisted company's owner, where then, uh, both the ownership and, uh, the taxes go off

[**23:53**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1433s) then, uh, and the children have, like, no idea about it, so it can end up being a really stressful situation, and then you'd suddenly need to get some company sale done, and even there, then, there's, like, uh, maybe no understanding that those are long processes. And then, in a way, for the same reason, rich people in Finland tend to be older people, so often it would then be this kind of wishful thinking, that some other old person buys your old person's ownership, but what sense does that make, they know a lot less about it than you do. M, so it should be some kind of institutional structure, or some, some like, this kind of, uh, owner, who's able to take the reins from it and develop that business, so then it's no wonder that people then leave out into the world, and then structures get made where all these, like, problems go off right in your own and your family's face. Mm. And you can now note that then, when — if you look at generational transfers, like, in companies, so when those relief provisions apply, then the total tax burden is moderate. With that, surely many can live, but in very many situations they don't apply, and then, then, uh, it's a very serious and

[**24:56**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1496s) difficult situation, both, of course, for these companies — they have to prepare and put, in a way, like, funds aside for a rainy day, but also, also, like, for Finnish society, and for companies', companies', like, dynamics. Yeah, yeah. On this, the family-business association calculated, that that stashed-away fund would already be quite in the neighborhood of, say, 5.5 billion, and then again, Swedish studies have shown that it has brought a lot of long-term steadiness, and those companies grow more, and since that reform, and take more risk, and Sweden is this kind of, like, small-capitalist's dream right now, that there's capital to be found there, and the stock market is really strong, and, and there's that capital turnover happening, and circulation and risk-taking, and, by the way, we have this, this Samuli Knyfril, uh, of Trans Corporate Finance too, put out a report on that back in [20]15, so he has done really good research on this, specifically on unlisted, uh, [scoff] owner-companies and their, like, capital pool, that they are, compared to others, great research work. I don't know how much you follow this,

[**25:56**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1556s) actually the doctor's hat, and dive into this, like, industry research, that for example, just these Swedish studies, or studies. Yes, I do, like, follow follow, that [clears throat], of course, like, as my main job it's, it's quite like on the advisory side over there, but yes, I do I also, in that sense, from old memory, have a researcher's hat on, that yes, I do now follow, follow to some extent, some extent, also, like, research and various discussion, in a way even academic discussion and about tax policy. I'd suggest, that, well, later we go to the insider side, and talk a bit more about this, that I myself, uh, was on a separate-law like, drafting working group as a permanent expert. Back then I was Nordic Trust's managing director, so we made this kind of separate law, uh, on bond holders', uh, representative and security agent. Absolutely great stuff, but that's, in a way, on my end, that legal side. And then not these other reforms that haven't come yet, uh, but they are very strongly in preparation, and, like, the sure one, the law, is this, uh, corporate tax

[**27:01**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1621s) moderation to 18, that in my opinion it's already now, like, guiding investments, growth, and risk-taking, because when people see that, then from those future profits they'll get to keep more. Yeah, it's definitely, it's, it's an important, important, uh, component of corporate taxation, that is, that, uh, supports then supports growth and making investments in Finland, and, uh, also ownership. So, so, yes, it is, it is an important, important measure, and, and that what's of course worrying is that, that in some circles it's been announced that it would be, be reversed, or something along those lines, but hopefully it won't come to that. What I of course also have to remember is that the corporate tax rate isn't, isn't of course the only thing. It's perhaps the most important component, of course, but not the only one in corporate taxation. So then there are

[**28:02**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1682s) a lot, a lot of different factors, where, where uh, Finland's, Finland's tax system should, like, be improved, and, and brought to a more competitive level, which, which then hasn't, hasn't, uh, hasn't, hasn't for one reason or another, like, been implemented. Just, as examples, one could mention for example, that we have, we have this kind of, like, share disposal tax exemption, that is, these fixed-asset shares, so so there, like, little by little, these interpretations, and also through case law, have tightened, tightened so significantly that, that, uh, it is, it in a way it's no longer this kind of, like, internationally-modeled participation exemption, which is what it was originally meant to be. Originally it was enacted back in 2004. Mm. So, for example, this kind of fixing it — that, that is a genuine harm to competitiveness, because, because for example, a corporate group would rather set up some, some structure with some intermediate companies or holding companies invest, say, rather in Sweden than in Finland. M

[**29:03**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1743s) so, and it causes a lot, a lot of tax risk in Finland, and interpretive uncertainty, and so on. Then we have, for example, like, a disproportionately broad application practice with this kind of general anti-avoidance provision, which causes a considerable amount of uncertainty in many situations, and, and also then, also then various disputes, which weaken, like, Finland's system's predictability and, and reliability significantly. Yeah. On that, EVA's Emiliina Kujanpää, who has also been here, wrote, in my opinion, exactly about these problems, like, a commendable report, that that [scoff] tax risk is also, I mean, that you don't know, uh, which system it'll go by, if that fixed asset shares' treatment is, like, totally absurd, that if you have, like, there it's really extreme, that either there's no taxation at all, or then it's like uh, the full pot, and then on top there's, like, still the costs of you going to litigate your own case, and yeah possibly, uh, advance tax ruling interpretations, they don't really want to give,

[**30:06**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1806s) because that interpretation has been driven narrower and narrower, so that everything goes off right in your face, and the normal international model is, that, that if you own at least, like, 10%, and have owned it for one year, then all — the limited company's, uh, of the other company's shares that you own — the disposals of those shares are tax-free. Yeah. But then in Finland, they require like, on top of these, these, these clear criteria, [clears throat] various kinds of, like, a business connection, which is a very, very kind of, like, interpretive concept, or then some other link [clears throat] to the transferring company's business activity, which is also completely murky, in the shadows, as to what with that then, and at worst, you end up building some strange like administrative contraptions then in both companies, you fill it out, and then it turned out there was no benefit at all, you just got costs. And then those taxes came anyway, right in your face — it's like totally ridiculous nonsense, yeah. And then again, on the other hand, we then do quite readily accept that, say, dividends are, uh, between companies tax-free, so then, what difference is there now, that this

[**31:07**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1867s) is, like, somehow just — yeah, yeah, there's a computed thing here. Someone has just decided now, uh, this isn't at all [scoff] nice, that these — you're not taxed on this in between, in advance. M yeah. Uh. Well then, uh, one or a couple more of these kinds of, uh, bubbling-under, uh, uh, probably, like, uh, still somewhat open matters is this world's best, uh, stock-option taxation, that is — Riikka Purra did say now let's get this sorted out, so as background, back in the day my first boss that, uh, Petteri Fagernees, back in the day, distinguished himself on Fortum's board as chairman, together with Mikka Lilius, and then, uh, before that there had been quite a lot of, like, Nokia millionaires made through options, and back then there was this kind of lovely system, that, uh, those options were, quite rightly, taxed according to this, this international principle, as capital income tax, and, and only then when they turn into money, that is, you sell, uh, sell the shares. But then over time, this too got perverted in a way, that they take, take them just to be safe

[**32:08**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1928s) at that moment, and also take earned-income tax on top. So isn't there now, in this outlook, like, a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, that, yeah, that up until now, or for a long time, at least the last 15 years, has, m the taxation of options been such, that when, if you sell the option, then, then then, then it's taxed, and it's taxed as earned income, but, and also in that case, that when you subscribe for the share, that subscription moment triggers the taxation, that is when you subscribe for a share with the option, and if you got the option, say, for free, then the share's fair value is, in practice, taxable earned income. Which, as we know, our highest marginal tax rates still are, and have been, like, world-class, and often this kind of extra income goes right into those highest marginal tax rates, so that's an extremely harsh taxation before there's, uh, any cash, cash actually come, come into your hand. Now, now the intention is to reform it, so that, that still

[**33:16**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=1996s) still, when, uh, a person subscribes for shares based on the option, the taxation isn't realized, but taxation is only realized then, when the shares are sold. Yeah. And probably the principle would then be, that, that up until that point, in a way that increase in the share's value, up until, until uh, the share has been subscribed, then it goes, would go, like, into earned-income taxation's scope, and then after that, once the shares are owned, then the increase in value after that would then be under capital income taxation's scope. Yeah. As such, what's important is that now it isn't, like, cashed in with money in advance, but also that, uh, that profit isn't any longer, like, earned by work in any way, once it's, like, been turned into a share, so of course it has to be capital income, that so, once again [scoff], here there's this, like, when Finns have this kind of delusion, that it's totally okay to compare over 50%, uh, that this and that, and then, like, the effect is that then there haven't come

[**34:17**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2057s) option millionaires, but there haven't been tax revenues either, so, or once again I mean, uh, you get what you don't tax, and what you tax, well, you get less of. So it's nothing more complicated than that, in a way they came up with, like, the perfect way to, like, kill the whole taxation — the tax revenue from options, from options altogether. Plus then, uh, nice for you if you're, like, some inventor or founder, and then the Yanks take the option money, and you don't even dare use the options, because, uh, you'd have to tear that money from somewhere, so you're you're, uh, a poor person, so where would you get those tax funds from. Exactly. In general, there should always be some reasonableness here, that if money is demanded to be pulled into the coffers, there should be some kind of test, that can this, like, tax subject, like, in any way, like, cope with this, and then, by the way, all sorts of things have been built around this, like, well okay, pay later, take this kind of, like, some crazy interest rate, which runs from this point on, that this is somehow, like, just really, really like greedy, this tax-bear's, uh, thinking, like you said, so often it's not

[**35:17**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2117s) understood that, that people, on the other hand, in Finland are really, like, law-abiding in that way, that they, like, try to pay these, unless it's, like, totally unreasonable, or assessment-based taxation, that situation. I would have kind of the same, by the way, as a side note about these ancillary costs, that uh, this YIL, which the Marin government, uh, back then, uh, during that government's term brought in, was unreasonable, because then there were those strong, uh, features of assessment-based taxation in it. That, uh, in practice, at the tax authority's level, an operating pension company complex got, like, assessment-taxed with a single payment, so there's really no sense in that, if someone, someone, uh, outside says what you should have earned, and then takes 25% of that, then always these kinds of, uh, assessment- and advance rulings, without liquidity or real, uh, value creation beforehand, are really, really stupid, in my opinion. Yeah. And one, uh, actually, kind of a segue from that, that Finn- -ish tax system also has, like, serious problems, like,

[**36:21**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2181s) in terms of legal protection, m and on that, indeed, there's now a really fresh EVA report — this Kunnas' head, yeah, so, so, uh, for example we have it so that, that in principle it's in the law that in an un-, unclear situation, like, like, [U] the decision should then be made in favor of the taxpayer accordingly, but in practice this has remained a dead letter, and I would dare say that the prevailing practice is that unclear situations go against the taxpayer. That it is, or it's at least, like, unfortunately common. Mhm. That, so, so for example [clears throat] like in tax audits, or when making tax decisions and so on. After that, then when, like, these come, of course, then if you feel that a tax decision is off, then you could then file an appeal request with the Adjustment Board, which isn't however, like, an independent, independent court, but rather

[**37:24**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2244s) a unit within the Tax Administration, where then, then, uh, there isn't, isn't in a way, like, the procedural mechanisms of a court proceeding, there's no oral hearing or anything, and, and, uh, and the processing times are incredibly long. Mm. From one to two years, or even longer times have been seen. So, so, so these are, and then we have, like, and since there are really a lot of, like, these open-to-interpretation tax provisions, and since the Tax Administration easily makes, like, like, the tax recipient's favorable decisions, then the importance of advance rulings of course like grows significantly. But even in those there's then, like, in this EVA report as well, quite a lot, a lot of different problems were noted, and then indeed there's also that problem, that VOVA, that is, the Tax Recipients' Legal Services Unit, can appeal then if the taxpayer gets a positive ruling. So, so this can then completely pull the rug out from under, like, that

[**38:25**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2305s) advance ruling, just because of that too, that, that if it then goes to the administrative court, then that, that might take another year or two after. Yeah. And there are, uh, big changes here. I had, uh, Tarja Visto as a guest on this, uh, she dared to go through this, uh, Ahlström Munksjö, uh, redemption case, and, in a way, [scoff], then it also came out, that there was this kind of, uh, at a negative price, uh, uh, forced golf-share sale, so sometimes there are, like, really interesting outcomes in these, and then, in a way, when the level of court rolls on, like, up to the higher court, then you go with those decisions, and sometimes quite interesting, interesting final results come out of it, and, uh, I'm not competent [scoff] to evaluate those, but it's fun, fun to speculate then. I had, for example, just as a side note, my first thought was, for example, here in this Ahlström Munksjö uh, uh, in the redemption price, that I have like a strong principle, one share, one price, so in a way of course it now gets redeemed at the same price at which the main deal was made. To me it's, like, somehow natural, but then [scoff] when I got into that

[**39:26**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2366s) case, there were then reasons this way and that, that it could have gone the other way, and different courts overturned each other's decisions, and likewise this too is also like quite absurd, that there can be this kind of situation, since usually a limited liability company means that you shouldn't ever have to do a share sale, that you can always just, like, leave that certificate, uh, unused as worthless, but then there was just this kind of, like, golf share, where, uh, then, uh, the minority shareholders were forced, uh, like, uh, to pay for the fact that they were redeemed. So yeah yeah. But I mean, uh, [clears throat] as such, law too is a science and an art made by people, that everything can be agreed upon, and that then these kinds of, like, preconceptions then don't always, always hold. [clears throat] Mm. And in that sense it's good that this tax interpretation is being done, and from that a bit of this kind of case-law practice emerges. Maybe as a philosopher, I'd want to ask, since we don't have that American, uh, tradition where precedents create, uh, that body of law, but instead we have, like,

[**40:29**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2429s) this kind of — how do you put it nicely, uh, legal [scoff] system, where the state's power and, uh, written laws, so, so not, not — it's not that, in a way, court cases create it — so is there, uh, is there, like, some conflict here with, then, world trade, or other countries with? Well yeah, we, we do, I mean, the principle like, in the European, European way, is exactly that the legislator, like, enacts the law in force, and the laws, but, but we too have, like, like, the highest, highest courts', and the Supreme Administrative Court's decisions do have, like, like, uh, an effect that, like, shapes the law, so, so, then if the KHO, say, sets a line on some principle in some matter, then, then, like, as a starting point, authorities and other courts, the lower courts, should follow

[**41:30**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2490s) it, if it's this kind of, like, published precedent. So, so in that sense we too are, we too aren't purely, like, like, like, solely dependent on the legislator, but in Finland the problem has been that, that these interpretations are already made, like, at the authority level, in the lower courts, and also, for example, in the Supreme Administrative Court, in my opinion, in many cases, changes are made to the law in force that, like, go too far. actual changes should be made by the legislator in Parliament. Only, like, clarifications within a certain, like, framework set by the legislator belong to the courts, but developing the law itself should belong to the legislator. Yeah. So this, here there is that, in a way, that certain, certain kind of, like, tension. Yeah. But the good side is that now then, with just basic parliamentarism, through the right-wing government, you can change this, like, heavily shelved, and the authorities', uh,

[**42:31**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2551s) hijacked tax practice, just by making a new law, and then, in a way, this stupid system gets wiped away, so in that sense these are also good, these kinds of, like, reforms that have been discussed here, because they, like, wipe out that, like, mindless accumulation, and, and tradition that has gotten to form within that system, like, self-perpetuating. [scoff] Yeah. So it's then, then a tear for those who've been able for decades to, uh, like, hit with that provision onto the head of this little administrative subject, but rightly for those who vote in the elections then. Mm. [laughter] So there, too, democracy is indeed this kind of great purifier, and the authority then does what, uh, the democratic system commands. On that by the way, maybe on this, I was also, uh, when Nalle, uh, wrote for Libera just this kind of, uh, defense of a constitutional court, so I sort of agreed with Nalle for a long time, but then, uh, Heikki Westman came on as my guest, and then we discussed this for an hour and a half, that, uh, Parliament's, uh, Constitutional Law Committee is actually quite good, because in Finland these court levels are so terribly long, and

[**43:34**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2614s) in a way that basic assumption, that you're kind of, like, guilty uh, in that, the whole thing, when the system just drags on for, like, a decade, maybe even longer, so that it's actually good that this too has then in a certain way, a bit politically, but, like, pre-cleansed, that they take the slack out of it, like, right there during the law's processing and approval, and it's not left, uh, to someone. This is that great, great, uh, myth that politicians, of course, especially keep alive, that we should have a constitutional court — it wouldn't in any way remove the need for prior constitutional review at all, and that could, say, be done by some parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee, or by requesting an opinion from a constitutional court. Both are necessary. We we're completely lacking, in practice, subsequent review, and only in subsequent review can you take a position on what situations actually would arise. During the law-drafting stage we're a bit, like, in a theoretical setting still, that here there's, like, this kind of thing, and, and possible, and it's of course important, but subsequent review is still, or it's

[**44:39**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2679s) they're together, like, those are what form, like, constitutional review. This subsequent review, for us, is practically entirely missing. Although maybe I would argue like this, that if you take, uh, a really extreme kind of parliament, then it could, with a 5/6 majority, uh, without this leaving-to-rest procedure, make quite big, like, changes. Mm. So, so then, in a way, that, like, with a certain qualified majority, you can, like, indeed then, like, do that thing, which in some other country the constitutional court would have then done. So, and that now is, I mean, yes, in any case, like, the constitution's amendment should remain, yeah, like, Parliament's right, under these certain criteria, that the Constitutional Law Committee mainly oversees compliance with the constitution, if Parliament amends the constitution, then the Constitutional Law Committee oversees compliance with that amended constitution so, but you're kind of like hoping for a constitutional court in Finl- -and — definitely, because I have, from my own, own profession's perspective,

[**45:43**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2743s) found that these kinds of, like, fundamental rights and, and legal principles don't, don't have that kind of significance in Finland, for example, in legal proceedings, compared to what, what in many, many other countries. Yeah. So, uh, so because of that, we in practice can get completely, like, even unreasonable outcomes, which with common sense, for example in taxation, you can't understand. Because someone, in the administrative court or the KHO, looks at some purely technical technical, uh, provisions and ends up at — well, this could be interpreted, say, like this. For example, that someone's personal property gets confiscated, when alongside that there could be an effective fundamental-rights interpretation. So, so different proportionality principles and the protection of property, like, as a starting point. So if you don't have a clear basis to confiscate someone's property, then you shouldn't confiscate it, based on that constitutional property protection interpretation alone. Yeah. So this kind of, these kinds of things are missing, and, and

[**46:45**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2805s) because of that we get, get an annoyingly large number, to put it bluntly, just incomprehensible, like, outcomes from rulings. Yeah, yeah. No, I, I'm maybe open on that — I mean, earlier I've been afraid of this, say, the American example, that if it then becomes politic-, then it gets politicized, that then you bring in, uh, and possibly geriatric, uh, uh, far-right or far-left and then it's down to their, uh, whim, that, uh, that, like, what kind of interpretation then comes out — let's take, say, an example, that, say, in my opinion, that universal applicability [of collective agreements] is an injustice, that it, like, clearly violates uh, freedom of contract, that what right does some, uh, like, tripartite body [scoff] have, like, to force private contracts into some particular form, if they aren't even parties to it — it just feels, like, really silly, that this kind of thing has gone through. Well, now that it's, like, somehow, by luck, gotten through this mangle, by accident or on purpose, then it then becomes this kind of, like, uh, an outright constitutional right under this system, so [scoff] there could then be some

[**47:48**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2868s) lofty constitutional, uh, court, to which this then gets brought, like, for a decision, and then they end up saying that was crap, let's take this out. That's the good outcome, but I'm not at all sure — there could then be, say, six lefties and two right-wingers, and they're of the opinion that under no circumstances this wouldn't it then just codify that, like, for all eternity, this thing, that I don't know, it's not necessarily, like, it's a good this kind of, like, extra safeguard, and, like, you said always then the parliament could then redraft the constitution, in which case that mangle pulls it through. You'd have to comply with it then. But it really is, like, in a certain way, like, about institutions, that the more, more, like, balanced and healthier the footing on which institutions are, the better, better the chance of getting as many correct outcomes as possible. No institution necessarily guarantees that individual bad ones won't come out of it. But we do have, like, an institutional problem in that we're lacking effective fundamental-rights and subsequent review. Mm. It's just, like, an institutional problem. It's kind of, like, a matter of chance, how they, how they decide to take some

[**48:52**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2932s) fundamental right into account, say, in the administrative court. Yeah. Unfortunately, often it's at least not in the taxpayer's favor. That's right. Then [scoff] maybe that, uh, international agreements. I was once, uh, an idealist in that sense, that I thought there was this kind of, uh, strong international, uh, law and case law, which is ancient and based on some agreements too, but in these kind of Trump-era times, my faith has started slipping away, so it's actually good then to have purely commercial ones, that even the Central Chamber of Commerce even feels a bit funny, that some kind of, uh, commercial system gets to make, say, uh, uh, on commercial agreements, then, then, uh, binding legal decisions, which are possibly even still secret, so that you can't even find out about them — but on the other hand it's an efficient system. It's reliable, and people want to put in their paper the name of the Chamber of Commerce or some equivalent, so that's their right. And in a way this kind of, like, commercial, commercial-smelling legal system too can be almost, like, already, in this kind of situation, better than

[**49:55**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=2995s) this kind of legal system. Mm. Or I don't know how much you see of it, that it's written straight into the contracts. It's not necessarily wanted that you go, like, through this three-tier legal system, since it's expensive. Yeah. Yes, it's, like, the prevailing practice in commercial contracts, that, that arbitration procedure is then the dispute resolution method, since there really are many, many problems there, I mean, like, from companies' point of view, in that kind of normal court proceedings. I mean, public- -ness itself can be a problem, and then processing times for example, so, uh, that's why these, in a way, like, commercial dispute resolution procedures really are, like, the prevailing practice. Yeah, I was that Nordic Trust managing director in Finland, and that Norwegian, uh, business partner was, yeah, FF said once, kind of oddly, I mean, uh, that his, uh, had been on staff at the court, uh, that there, like, they're that commercially

[**50:55**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3055s) specialized judging work, and when, like, in a way, when that system is run there on the public side, and with smart people, then it works, that, that then he, like, was a bit puzzled by this, Finland's, this system, that in a way we have kind of all the smart people, uh, on the private side, and then the public system is, like, somehow crumpled up, and maybe he's not thinking wrong and it's maybe not their fault, but somehow this is a bit lame, this Finnish system. Mm. Uh, well, I don't know, uh, I'm not, I'm not myself a lawyer, but I've glanced at a few contracts. Let's take here now this kind of temptation still, to finish, since you're then working at Castrén as one of Finland's top lawyers, so, uh, has your in a way, that work organization changed — that you still have that, Mert already, uh, retired, [clears throat] but, uh, capital markets, company sales, dispute resolution — has this, like, your, uh, division of labor changed here? Well no, no, not as such — yes, yes, we do have

[**51:56**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3116s) like a lot, a lot, like, in a way, the largest number of different practice areas or sub-practices and teams, but, but the thing is, that on assignments, indeed very close cooperation happens, so those, those don't form any boundaries, the ones where teams are, but, well, in expert work, in a certain way, has been seen more broadly too, that it is, is in a certain way good, that there are these kinds of like, like, teams built around those certain areas of expertise, where then also, like, that expertise gets developed, in a way, and you're able then always, always, like, to know who the right people are for any given assignment. But as such, as such, that, like, that work structure has stayed as such the same, even though a lot, a lot of change has happened here, and is happening because of AI. Of course it's not the first technological upheaval during my career, that I have often said, that when I started my legal career, then, then

[**52:59**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3179s) back then, letters were sent, and books were ordered from libraries, and, and uh, or you went to libraries, where there were legal sources, law books, and all other legal literature, and case law, and so on. So now already before AI, all legal sources are, like, right here all the time, on hand. 24/7. You don't need, don't need any, any, uh, anything else, nothing else is now, like, basically needed in order to be able to look up legal sources and cases, and to give, based on them, like, your own views. But AI is of course still one big and rapidly happening leap, quite, quite then to a certain, again new level. Yeah, I'm now, uh, Translink's head of AI, and I have brought AI into these, uh, certain processes of Translink's, like, automation's scope, but in that context so then, I've been sent here a lot of, like, AI startups, which

[**53:59**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3239s) in their own view try to challenge, uh, uh, Legora and others, but, uh, well one was quite interesting, this kind of, like, [unclear], so I installed it in a way, uh, that it was this kind of, uh, a multi-, like, agent, uh, [causal] type thing for contract documents, which then, uh, so, for legal documents then produced markup comments or other, other stuff. It was quite interesting. I also ran it, uh, on Finlex, like, so that I could get it run straight from there, uh, with this kind of MCP server, like, Finnish law and the Supreme Court's decisions, so you don't have to pay anything to some, uh, information aggregator — so yes, there really are, like, these kinds of, uh, quite good shortcuts even for non-lawyers, but it's still, I mean, at that stage I wouldn't, like, dare to let out any even slightly more important document, like, without, uh, a real lawyer's, uh, eye on it, that that there are, after all, then, uh, those assumptions, and then you never quite know how that, say now, Finlex's and these, like, uh,

[**55:01**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3301s) [sigh] Supreme Court's decisions, this harmony works together, and whether — have I now really found every single decision that affects that case, or whatever, but it really is moving forward fast, and, and, uh, there are, are, like, here these kinds of free sources — a lot of them have come out. Yeah, indeed. And truly, like, from today's lawyer, in a way, still, as before, maybe it's even emphasized more, that you also have to understand that big picture, and those, those principles, that are, like, behind the regulation, or somehow behind case law, so that you can efficiently also use these, these various tools, and are able like, are able to, like, direct their use and then can also, like, supervise that this makes sense, and if there's something then, then, uh, that, yes, it, it, there, like, the lawyer's job, job description is, like, changing, so, in my opinion, all the

[**56:02**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3362s) time more toward that, like, high-end direction. Indeed, like, many law firms, big international law firms have emphasized in their work, for years, this kind of, as it were, high-end advisory work, but it, it isn't going to decrease at all — on the contrary. It's going to, still, even more, like, become emphasized, so that you can. So there's this kind of, like, deep deep expertise, and, and insight, which, which isn't, like, which, which isn't that kind of like, mere surface, surface-level knowledge, and on top of that comes, comes then all these, all these, like, efficiency and also quality quality improvements, which many technologies in turn provide, which all the time keep developing. Yeah, good. And, uh, Jan N Ollila said about this, my new negotiation mandate, once kind of funnily, that, uh, Sami you, uh, probably think here, as an investment banker, that the legal agreement is, uh, this kind of, like, drafting of a commercial plan, where, like, through signing you go to closing, and then some post-game through their, like, reps and warranties. Yeah, that's exactly how I think about it, but, uh,

[**57:06**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3426s) a lawyer also sees this, like, uh, that Lord of the Rings-ish world — hasn't he said this — but that you see in the contract the clauses that, that you can use when there's disagreement. [scoff] [clears throat] Then, say, comes that post-deal, uh, uh, disappointment, and, say, something doesn't work at all, and you'd have to, say, cancel the whole deal, so what tools do you have available — well, AI [scoff] brings, like, these kinds of scary possibilities, that people, uh, who don't really have, say, skin in the game in Finnish society, then let's take, say, now, some cold American capitalist, well they can just blurt out that AI said with some 3% probability we can get this deal cancelled. And let's file, uh, a dispute, so, uh, that AI work also does these kinds of, like, of course from those then some Finnish lawyer might bill quite a lot, but, uh, what happens is that the cost of, like, uh, carrying out legal work has gone down, so that in a way you can, uh, like, take on a really low-probability case anyway, because that AI then does that, uh, cheaply, and there

[**58:08**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3488s) the quality doesn't matter that much either. I think this is going to become more common, this kind of, like, spamming, legal spamming. I don't know if you're already seeing a bit of this — well yeah, I mean, you do see some of it to some extent, you can see it in what's been reported publicly too, that appeals or other things get made, that they're able, like, to file. But then also this kind of interesting phenomenon, that, that, uh, also then in some clients' cases, say, it might come, like, like, AI clearly used, you might even get, like, like, in a way, an unnecessarily large amount of materials, unnecessarily extensive comments, that we then have to like — that sometimes this AI actually, it kind of feels like, produces for us extra work at times. Of course we can then also use AI in that analysis, but if in the old days, like, in a way, when there were questions from us to the client, it might have been a couple of couple of pages, quite concise, and then talk it over on the phone in more detail. Now you might get 20 or 200 pages, which as such is quite on point, but we don't, we

[**59:11**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP4n7OlFicE&t=3551s) have to somehow process it, in order for us to grasp it, but interesting, like, in a way, like, phenomena always, always kind of feels like, like every week or month there comes up something, something a bit, like, new kind of thing, just from this, this because of this development. Good. Thank you, Janne Juusela, for having watched or listened this far, so go ahead and subscribe to the channel, and let's move over to the [unclear] side. Let's talk a bit more about this, uh, legislative drafting, and indeed, like I said, my fine moment was this, uh, [music] drafting this [unclear], as well as, uh, you're, uh, active over on that side, so let's continue with a few more words on the insider [music] side. Thank you. Thank you. M.

---

Cite as: Sami Miettinen, Neuvottelija — How Inheritance Tax Drives Wealth Out of Finland | Janne Juusela, https://www.neuvottelija.com/podcast/episodes/734-verojuristi-perintovero-ajaa-varakkaat-pois-suomesta-janne-j/, 2026-07-14. For quotes include episode 395 and timestamp.