4 years after construction, the office also demands land acquisition tax on the house

Did you even read the thread? It says so in the purchase contract that the OP signed. Purchase of land with the simultaneous obligation to build a semi-detached house with contractor XY.
.

I was not aware that the tax office receives the contract or the wording, I thought maybe only the invoice etc.

But aside from that, if it says so in the contract, doesn't the notary even have a duty to inform? If yes, then the buyers either simply ignored it or did not understand the scope.

So off to the tax advisor and see how to get out of it most cheaply.

So off to the tax advisor and see how to get out of it most cheaply.

For example, by paying the legally regulated tax now required by the tax office. :rolleyes:

I have already written it once a few posts ago, but one often finds the statement that, in order to avoid double taxation, either VAT or real estate transfer tax must be paid. This is actually what the law says. Can those who see it differently please briefly explain again?

I had already written this a few posts ago, but you very often find the statement that, in order to avoid double taxation, either VAT or real estate transfer tax has to be paid. That is actually how it is stated in the law. Could those who see it differently please briefly justify it?

1. This concerns genuine property development business. So land + house from one party (here the land seller and the construction company are different parties). 2. The VAT option can only be made by the property developer. You as the final purchaser have no choice.

Whereas I personally believe that in such "false" developer transactions (i.e. construction obligation with a specific general contractor, but on paper a different land seller) the case law should clearly aim at concealment and assume a genuine developer transaction with all its consequences. It's similar to running a red light over a gas station or a parking lot, you still get the ticket - if caught. It is simply a bad habit of the general contractors to shift all risks onto the buyer (I won't mention the costs, as they would simply be added to the price in the end, but in principle the separation also serves to conceal costs).

In the present case, i.e. with a general contractor obligation specified in the contract of sale, I see no chances as a layperson either.

But aside from that, if it is stated like that in the contract, doesn't the notary even have a duty to inform? If so, then the buyers simply ignored it or did not understand the scope.

To my knowledge, the notary must ask whether one was able to follow his incense-laden explanations. And I agree with the initial suspicion that the notary may have provided inadequate information.

So off to the tax advisor and see how to get out of it most cheaply.

The latter, however, may only be revealed by the tax advisor if he is also a lawyer at the same time. It's the same thing as with “doctor and dentist.”