Assessment of real estate transfer tax

Hello everyone,

As a layperson in law, I have the following question for those present here with the appropriate expertise:

The purchase price amounts to sum x

this is composed of

Property A
Soil replacement B
Building permit rights and planning C

Shouldn't I actually only pay property transfer tax for A and B&C reduce the tax burden, or am I on the wrong track?

Thank you very much for your efforts

Good morning,

here §§ 8 and 9 of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act apply, these regulate that in the purchase of a property, the consideration paid by the purchaser constitutes the basis for calculating the real estate transfer tax.

Furthermore, reference is always made to the unified object of acquisition, which means that everything belonging to the property is included in the calculation basis.

Regarding the present matter.
In my opinion, real estate transfer tax is due on the full purchase price here, as the property is sold including the associated services and no tax exemption regulation comes to my mind here.

Advice:
To avoid trouble and real estate transfer tax, it would be worthwhile to remove services B and C from the notary contract and then commission them separately. However, to what extent this can be enforced against the seller appears questionable.

To avoid trouble and real estate transfer tax, it would be worthwhile to remove services B and C from the notary contract and commission them separately afterwards. However, it seems questionable to what extent this can be enforced against the seller.

However, if the items are only removed from the contract, but both agree that the work will definitely be paid to the seller later (planning seems to be already finished?), I see this as a tied transaction that also leads to tax liability.

If the items are only removed from the contract, but both agree that the work will definitely be paid to the seller later (planning seems to be already completed?), then I see this as a tied transaction, which also leads to tax liability.

If the notary contract is executed first and only afterwards further services are agreed upon in a separate contract, this does not constitute a tied transaction, since one is free to choose the contracting partner here and no connection with the original property purchase can be interpreted as meaning that the services are inseparably linked.

For other services related to a property, its development, or use, there is then no relevant provision anymore in the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act.

The order of the contracts is always important in tied transactions.

I interpreted the text of the OP in such a way that an already completed planning and building permit is to be sold along with it, then the buyer would no longer be free in their choice. Similarly, in my view, the intention to include earthworks in the notarized contract only makes sense if the work is either already completed or if the buyer is to be forced to carry out the work with the seller.

If these are really only free offers from the seller, then of course the notarized contract would be the worst way.

Hi,

Thank you for the comprehensive answers.

The contractual arrangement only exists because the seller had the idea to reduce taxes through this method.

The pure purchase price is too low, measured against the BRW, to conclude a separate contract for B&C.

Have a nice Sunday!