2-family house: Border construction adjacent to neighbor's house about 70% more expensive!

So, before I forget: with option 1, be sure to go to the tax advisor beforehand! Because if the property is built on and only divided afterwards (in the land register), the tax office will charge you real estate transfer tax on the apartment and land. They don’t care who paid what, when, and how. Only what exists at the time of the transfer of ownership counts. It would be stupid to pay 3.5% real estate transfer tax on the proportional apartment costs. If you acquire the anticipated MEA on the land beforehand, you only pay real estate transfer tax on that. At least that is my legal understanding... truly binding information -> tax advisor. And with option 2, a tax advisor can’t hurt either -> see Gestaltungsmissbrauch.

The advice about the tax advisor is good and correct. Definitely do it. But for a different reason.


Why the hell should the tax office even charge real estate transfer tax there?

No matter which option it is, I don’t see a single euro going to the tax office (if done correctly).

Yes... You're right, for tax-free transfer of real estate you have three options.

1. Shared Deal - too complicated
2. Inheritance - I don't want to assume that
3. Gratuitous gift - and it definitely depends on how the notarial deed for the gift is structured. Especially if the [SE] have several children. I am not familiar with that. But the [FA] is ruthless there. Just because you didn't pay anything doesn't mean it is gratuitous for the [FA].

Therefore, consult a tax advisor beforehand, after it's too late.

Why so complicated? You will have the property transferred to you and the whole place will belong to you. The SE get a lifelong rent-free right of residence (but they pay the ancillary costs themselves) with you (contractually fixed). To contribute to the loan, they give you a nice lump sum of equity. Done! Or am I seeing it too simply? If the SE want everything to go to the daughter anyway, they should do it now before it becomes part of the estate.

Or am I seeing this too simply?

Yes. at least it is not yet clear to all parties involved in the process that the last construct will neither be supported by banks nor may it entail disadvantages and risks regarding ownership rights.

After an intense conversation today, a lot was clarified within the family. It was not a big deal

-The SE take out their own loan for about 1/3 of the amount (there is the question if we might possibly get more precise information from the company)

-The SE are owners of the land and the house. Then the upper floor and attic would have to belong to us by notarization

I assume the SE are very attached to their property...

Why so complicated?
...
Or am I seeing this too simply?

Yes, you are seeing it too simply. For example, that would not be a tax-free acquisition. I think (or maybe... I don't know much about that. -> Tax advisor)

Furthermore, this has even more disadvantages compared to my variant 2. You cannot deduct anything from taxes (even though you are the owner).

Moreover, the right of residence is registered in the land register and causes a reduction in value when financing.

And life is a bitch.
I know a case where a man granted his new wife a right of residence. And the children were supposed to get the house in the end.
That's okay so far. Unfortunately, the wife (stepmother) became ill and had to go to a nursing home. Because of the right of residence (which only ends after death), the children neither could rent out nor sell the house. The place has been empty for years and is deteriorating. Roughly estimated 200k € down the drain.
Think the impossible in such matters or KISS (keep it simple and stupid).