2 buyers - 1 property - different amounts of money - owner?

Do you also read the answers here?

In the land register it says a €15,000 share belongs to buyer A and a €285,000 share belonged to person B?

Or is that always expressed in percentages?

Ownership shares are given in fractions. So for example 1/10 or 5/100.

That’s how it is and no other way. And that is independent of how much each one pays. Financing is basically independent of the shares in the land register entry – so theoretically person A can pay for the property, but 50/50 person B is registered, 50/50 person C.

So if you want something regulated accordingly in the land register, it must be explicitly defined to the notary.

Personally, I warn against simply entering the actual money ratios there. Because in the overall component that has no head or tail.

Now it makes sense. So if buyer A pays 5% of the money and person B 95%, then the purchase contract will also state, for example, that person B acquires 95% of the ownership.

No.

Thank you very much!

This is how it should be and no different. And this is also independent of how much each person pays. Financing is basically independent for the shares in the land register entry – so theoretically Person A can pay for the property, but Person B is registered 50/50, Person C 50/50.

If you want something regulated accordingly in the land register, it must be explicitly defined to the notary.

However, Person A transfers 95% of the purchase price to the seller. But if 50/50 is registered in the land register, that would be a gift and huge gift tax would be due.

Therefore, it must be communicated to the notary who paid how much of the purchase price and that it is entered accordingly (the notary will specify this in fractions) in the land register.

Personally, I warn against simply entering the monetary shares there. Because that has no overall sense or logic.

You mean whoever pays how much – the fractions should be entered that way? Why do you warn against that? If it were done differently, gift tax would always be due.

However, Person A transfers 95% of the purchase price to the seller. But if a 50/50 ownership is registered in the land register, then it would be a gift and enormous gift tax would be due.

Now you are asking the same question for the 10th time, which has long been answered.

It is very unusual that "each transfers their part." The usual case is that you transfer the equity capital to the bank and it pays the purchase price. One transfer to the seller. For small loans, the bank transfers to the buyer, who then pays the purchase price to the seller. Without a bank, it is usually done the same way. No one sees who pays with whose money. Likewise, the bank does not collect the loan installments in fractions from the buyers, but simply debits the installment from the specified account.

To stick with your example: If indeed two unmarried people buy together and essentially only one of them permanently provides the capital, then this should roughly be reflected in the ownership shares. Because in a sale, the proceeds go back to the parties according to ownership shares (or pass on to the heirs upon death; or must be settled in case of separation).

Therefore, your example does not make sense. Unless it is indeed and intentionally a gift - well then just make one.

You mean, whoever pays how much – the fractions should be entered that way? Why do you warn against it? If it were done differently, gift tax would always be due.

No, quite the opposite! Partnership in private life, namely a marriage-like community, means mentally 50/50. It is silly and later plays a completely subordinate role if, for example, for €200,000, one registers 190,000/95% and 10,000/5%. Because that means the one with 95% would have to pay out the other anyway. The opposite is rather not possible. Child-rearing works similarly. One stays at home and invests 95% in upbringing, the other spends half an hour with the child and gives 5%. Nevertheless, the child is 50/50 yours. This is arranged through a private loan or rather through a private contract. If you are not married and do not want to be married, then you just have to bite the bullet that you emotionally invest more. If a loan plays a role: the loan itself will probably also be taken out 50/50. A tax advisor provides security. I have gone through this myself twice: not 95/5, but with the first house 80/20 in terms of equity, but arranged through a private contract. If there is a separation, the weaker party is paid out and removed from the land register. End of story. In the land register, we were 50/50 and each of us also repaid the same amount of the loan. Because we had the financing jointly 50/50 on our backs.

Yes. In this case, both buyers are not married. And the money is also not transferred beforehand to an account of either of the two buyers.

One contributes significantly more money for the purchase. That also interests the tax office. Everything over €20,000 would then have to be taxed as a gift. If you want to avoid that, the shares must be correctly stated in the notary contract according to the invested amount of money. A private contract helps little here, since the loaned money would then have to be interest-bearing at 5.5%.

For married buyers, it looks exactly as you describe - there are high gift tax exemptions.

Yes. In this case, both buyers are not married. And the money is also not transferred to an account of either buyer beforehand.

One contributes significantly more money for the purchase. That also interests the tax office. Everything over €20,000 would then have to be taxed as a gift. If one wants to avoid that, the shares must be correctly stated in the notarial contract according to the amount of money invested. A private contract also helps little, since then the loaned money would have to be interest-bearing at 5.5%.

Then the one who contributes significantly more money takes out the loan alone? Or is the entire amount paid from equity? Then it would be perfectly fine to register, for example, 94/100 and 6/100 as ownership shares.

If financing comes into play, the whole construct collapses. Because there are only three possibilities:
A finances alone ==> bad if B also has co-ownership
B finances alone ==> even worse, because A is the main owner
A+B finance together ==> similar to option 2, because each borrower is personally liable for the entire debt

Otherwise: simply have a GbR contract notarized before signing the purchase contract, and the GbR becomes the buyer of the property.