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

It apparently is not about partnership here if you read his post 21.
And a notary does not provide tax advice.

Yes, yes, boyfriend and girlfriend have already been mentioned in the countless threads.
And I also did not advise tax consultation (it is often just the way it is), but quite explicitly a notarial one.

If I can buy a property 95% on my own and then start making such (mental) contortions about if and how to consider a second person, I’d rather pay the remaining 5% of that property alone and thus create clear financing and ownership structures for myself and the other person regarding this property.

Person B simply can’t afford that much. Ideally, Person B would receive 100% of the property, but that would then be a (very expensive) gift. Person A, meanwhile, doesn’t mind giving away a large sum.

A takes out their own loan and B as well?
And if it becomes ONE loan, the division by shares becomes obsolete because then both are fully liable.

They both take out a loan to finance a part of the property. Both are fully liable. However, the property is still registered by shares in the land register because Person A invested significantly more money. Person B is supposed to repay the loan alone, so that Person B is attributed not only 50% of shares in terms of the loan amount but 100%. Thus, Person A bears the risk of the loan equally but Person B repays it. The goal is, as already said, that Person B gets as much of the property as possible (without triggering gift tax relevance).

Person B should also feel safer that Person A cannot just throw them out. If Person B then holds 5% or 15% of the property, Person A cannot simply do that.

@ (water, property tax, heating, etc.) If Person B does not pay these, then they would freeze, have no water. Property tax would have to be paid proportionally to their shares. If not, it would not be that bad either.

.. although the 5% share that has always been talked about so far is not understandable either and could eventually cause real problems.

What problem do you have in mind?

So the short version of your story is: A wants to give B a house, but not pay gift tax.

Person A does not care that they are giving away a large sum of money.

2 (already mentioned) solutions:
- A buys the house and lets B live there for free. If necessary with a right of residence or a fixed rent contract. Everyone is happy.
- B buys the house and A pays everything. Then the tax won’t bother him either.

She would have to pay property tax proportionally to her shares.

There is one notice from the municipality. Who pays it is completely irrelevant to the municipality.

If Person B then has 5% or 15% of the property, Person A can’t just do that easily.

Yes, he can. He simply stops paying the loan.

What problem do you have in mind?

- B suddenly dies
- A and B have a falling out
- A becomes bankrupt and wants/must liquidate his real estate assets
- A has no desire to keep supporting B after 10 years
- B files for personal bankruptcy.

Person B simply cannot afford that much. It would be best if Person B received 100% of the property, but that would then be a (very expensive) gift. Person A, however, does not care about giving away a large sum.

Where is the problem then that A buys and lets B live there rent-free. Problem solved. Thread could be closed.

They both take out a loan to finance part of the property. Both are fully liable. However, the property is still registered in the land register by shares, since Person A invested significantly more money. Person B is supposed to repay the loan alone, so that Person B is attributed not only 50% share in the loan amount but 100%. The risk is therefore borne by Person A with the loan as well, but Person B repays it. The goal, as already said, is that Person B gets as much of the property as possible (without gift tax becoming relevant).

That does not work with loans. Either each finances alone and is liable alone – that becomes a banking problem with the land charges. Or they are jointly liable, then they can also take out a joint loan right away.
Please separate "taking out a loan," "liability," and "who repays" properly. If both take out a loan and are each fully liable, it does not matter to the bank who pays the loan. If B does not pay, the bank collects the money from A. No matter what you agree between yourselves.
You cannot assign a loan to someone "outside of the loan agreement." Either you have a loan – then you are liable. Or you don't have one – then you are not liable. But you cannot take out a loan and say "This is not mine."

Person B should also feel more secure that Person A cannot just throw them out. If Person B then has 5% or 15% of the property, Person A cannot just do that easily.

Misconception. That can (almost) happen overnight.

You really build complicated constructs for a simple matter. Above all, you always imagine a wonderful "assignment." If you already do such nonsense,... No, don't do the nonsense.
See above.

Oh yes. If B only gets a small share of the property in the land register, why should B then bear 100% of the repayment? A great deal for A. A buys the house and B pays the loan without having anything of it if A later throws B out of the house.
I only realize now how B is being taken for a ride.

- A buys the house and lets B live in it for free. If necessary, with a right of residence

Then financing will probably be out of the question. Unless B is very old.

Person B is supposed to repay the loan alone,

Unfortunately, it does not apply: the one who repays stays. It remains the one with the most shares in the land register or the one who is more liquid and can pay out the others if necessary.

Person B is also supposed to feel more secure that Person A cannot just kick them out.

But he can. B is only repaying…

If Person B then has 5% or 15% of the property, Person A can’t just do that easily.

But of course, that is possible. The leverage money is simply paid out so that one leaves the land register and that’s it. If Person A waits some years, he ruins Person B.

Person A, meanwhile, does not mind giving away a large sum.

Isn’t it a bit strange to talk about yourself in the third person?