Close with a different selling price than discussed with the broker?

With us, the notary did not check anything. We still had all the invoices for the kitchen, awning, bathroom furniture, of course, and told the buyer the individual amounts. He asked the notary if it would be possible to accept sum X for everything in the contract. The answer was, "If that’s what you want, I will record it as such." Whether he would have said that with a ratio of €330,000 to €20,000, I do not know. The purchase price was significantly higher and the amount for furniture was only slightly higher.

That is also not the notary’s task. He drafts a legally sound contract and advises you. His only job is to write down the wishes/requirements of two parties in a legally proper manner. He is not a tax advisor.
Legally sound is also €400k for furniture and €50k for the house price. Whether the tax office or you as the buyer will have fun with that is another question.

Legally clean is also T€ 400 furniture and T€ 50 house price. Whether the tax office or you as the buyer will have fun with that is another question.

I was the seller in this case, so I wouldn't have had the problem with the tax office, but I still wanted to make sure the information wasn't "unserious". I assume a notary generally knows the issue and hopefully points it out if it becomes unrealistic. Whether they have to do that is another matter. We recently bought a condominium with a one-year-old kitchen, and the notary, for example, told us unsolicited what range he would use.

I was the seller in this case, so I wouldn’t have had the problem with the tax office, but I still wanted to make sure the information was not "questionable."

But – possibly profits from private sales transactions.

We recently bought a condominium with a one-year-old kitchen; for example, the notary told us on his own initiative, without being asked, in which area he would set the value.

Advice – that’s how it should be. But the certification should be according to your wishes in the end.

Take a look at my specific example #13. There I explain that it can be more expensive to save on the real estate transfer tax because, in return for the financing, I have to pay a higher interest rate.

That's exactly what I didn't understand. Specifically: Why do you pay a higher interest rate when the purchase price is lower? The bank's risk doesn't increase the lower the purchase price of the property is.

That's exactly what I didn't understand. Specifically: Why do you pay a higher interest rate when the purchase price is lower? The bank's risk doesn't increase the lower the purchase price of the property is.

The collateral for the bank is the property and not the furniture inside. If the purchase price of the property is significantly adjusted downwards, it is obvious that the market value of the property is not that high either. Against that stands the same high loan. The ratio of loan to value of the property is therefore possibly worse than originally assumed and as a result, the interest rates can be higher.

At least that's my theory. Ultimately, it depends on how the bank values the property. I suspect that if you bring a lot of equity, like in your example (practically 50% equity), it probably doesn't weigh that much. But if it was a 100% financing anyway and now suddenly the loan taken out is higher than what the property costs, I can imagine that the bank takes a closer look.

(Note, layman's opinion)

Just wanted to add that this can "hit" you either way, regardless of whether it is split up in the purchase contract or not.

Currently, we don't see this as often anymore, but during the low interest/high house price phase, there were quite a few cases where the bank initially said okay in the first inquiry and then – after receiving all the documents – the appraisal of the house turned out to be significantly lower than the purchase price. With solid equity, this only results in slightly worse terms, but with tight financing, it can also cause the financing to fall through. I believe it happens quite often (even without furniture) that the bank's appraisal differs from the purchase price. Whether this is a problem or just a formality in the background depends on the individual case.

The remarks here only go in the direction of "maybe nobody wants to wake sleeping dogs" (e.g. it stands out more because the purchase price is split in the contract), but actually the bank should notice it anyway if the purchase price is higher than the value of the property.