Child construction allowance with non-final building permit

The only thing you are doing is deliberate deception. You definitely have an "interesting" legal opinion.

Well, but is it really legal if you already know that you won't build the house like that? The intention to build a house is not physically building a house.

Does the state promote the architecture of the house or the citizens/families or their property as such? This is not about snatching up subsidies and then not building, but merely about possible ways to speed up the building permit process in order to possibly make adjustments later!? The state couldn't care less whether your wall ends up half a meter further to the right or left!

the only thing you are doing is intentional deception. You definitely have an "interesting" legal opinion.

Where exactly, according to your legal opinion, is the intentional deception!? That one has the firm intention to build and presents, for example, the building permit as proof, which could/might have to be adjusted afterwards?

Although this does not concern me, I can absolutely understand the thread starter trying it within these possibilities. As far as I have understood the original question correctly, I see absolutely no problem with it.

You can twist it any way you want, but the state provides funds for carrying out a construction based on a building application. Whether you build or not does not depend solely on you. The banks and the building authority also have a say. If you submit a new building application in three months, the old one is anyway void and the matter is settled. After moving in, you have to provide proof that everything went as planned. At the latest then it becomes clear that there was some "fooling around," and believe me, you are certainly not the only one with this plan – our state knows that too. And if there is one thing we know, it is that our state is no fun when it comes to money – then I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.

Nevertheless, the state acts according to laws. Otherwise, many tax consultants would suddenly be unemployed if they could not offer their clients legal (!) tricks.

Nevertheless, I would find this approach personally reprehensible. Not least because we will actually be submitting a building application soon (we do not expect approval this year). If this approach becomes common practice, however, the building authorities will be overwhelmed and the processing time for serious applications will also be extended.

Whether you build or not does not depend on you alone. The banks and the building authority also have a say in it.

Ok, I was referring to the assumed situation that everyone is already on board and has given their approval.

If you submit a new building application in three months, the old one is invalid anyway and the matter is settled.

If that is the case, understood. I was not aware of that. I naively assumed that in such a case the building application would simply be "adjusted/supplemented."

At the latest then it becomes clear that someone has "lied," and believe me, you are certainly not the only one with this plan – our government knows that too. And if we know one thing, it is that our government does not mess around when it comes to money – then I would not want to be in your shoes.

As I said, it was not about "lying," but rather about possibly finding a reasonable and legal alternative in the procedure to be able to accelerate the whole process.

Thanks accordingly for the explanations! Honestly, I have reread the original question in the thread and understood where my misunderstanding and your lack of understanding come from.