Defensive offer, or have house prices become so expensive?

Hi,

you can check if there is something similar in Saxony to the local courts in Hessen. You can have real estate appraisals created by them. Usually, you are then asked whether you want to have a value estimated for a sale within the family or if the appraisal value should be determined for the open market. The appraisers have a very considerable leeway in this regard. In the case of my parents' property, the difference was several hundred thousand euros. These appraisals are accepted by the tax office without any problems.

Apart from that, it probably applies: off to the notary and have parts of the property transferred up to the amount of the tax exemptions. If your father lives for more than 10 years, you can use the exemption amount again.

Why am I being forced to sell?

I'm about to lose my temper, so I just want to write something about this: Nobody, absolutely nobody, is forcing you to sell. If you continue to claim this (without ever having been to a tax advisor and without being able to present factually verifiable figures), a "discussion" is pointless.

Nobody, absolutely nobody forces you to sell. If you continue to claim that (without ever having been to the tax advisor and without being able to present factually verifiable figures) a "discussion" is pointless.

We are hardly even discussing here anymore. But before you get too worked up: The options are selling or borrowing against it. In the sentence you quoted, I was referring to pagoni2020's text, about covering retirement provision through the increase in value. I wanted to emphasize once more that we do not want to sell nor be forced to do so. And yes, there are other options regarding transfer in 10-year intervals or similar. But as I said before, I do not want to discuss that here. I will say it one last time: I just wanted to point out the imbalance between the tax exemptions and the massively increased property values and thus the concealed tax increase. The core of the whole discussion lies, in my opinion, in this sentence:

Something to think about again: A real profit would be if, when selling the house, I could buy the same house again + 1 cent. But I cannot. On the contrary. I have to give up 133K. The question is never how much money you have, but how much you can buy with it.

The options are selling or pawning.

That is not entirely correct. The main option is to consult a professional to find out whether your two options are really your only two options.

I just wanted to point out the imbalance of the exemptions compared to the massively increased property values and thus the hidden tax increase.

That is simply not true. It would be a tax INCREASE if the BOOK value had remained the same but you had to pay more taxes than before.

That the LIVING value of a house is independent of the book value is correct and no one contradicted you there. But living values are not taxable.

Two perspectives on the situation:

a) You receive a book value of 2 million for 133k. Previously, you would have received a book value of 1 million (fictional) for 0k. 133k for 1 million increase in value: nice deal.

b) You receive a living value of 1 for 133k, which you would have gotten for 0k before. Crap deal over time.

You are clearly in perspective b). Understandable, because you don’t want to realize the book value in any way, but rather live in the property.
Only: this has NOTHING to do with taxes. A tax can only ever be levied along perspective a). To imagine a tax increase from your perspective b) is a logical error.
You wouldn’t argue that your income shouldn’t be taxed because you definitely don’t want to spend it, would you?

Because the value of your assets has increased by 1 million, which subsequently costs 133k (assuming the above numbers are correct). Why shouldn’t that benefit the public at large in small part at some point during a property transfer?
Especially since your house, bluntly put, “blocks” municipal housing. Sounds worse than I mean it to, but it is true.

I will say it one very last time: I just wanted to point out the imbalance of the exemptions compared to the massively increased property values and thus the hidden tax increase.

You can believe me that this "problem" is quite well known in the South as well and that by now almost every house in the inner city exceeds the exemption amount. I discuss this almost daily. I can understand why an heir feels like something is being taken away from them – nevertheless, the property has a value (even if it only exists on paper for you) that stands opposite your "loss." It cannot and must not become a problem for the general public that prices develop the way they do. There is a good reason why owner-occupied properties remain tax-free; those who do not want that should, may, and must let the general public share in their profit (and you do have one, 1.7 million minus taxes is still more than you had before the inheritance). That you do not want to realize this profit, with all due understanding, is your own problem. Those who have more give more. That is how taxes work. The only exception is value-added tax, which is why in my eyes it is also the most unfair of all taxes. By the way, the tax was not increased, not even hidden. It just occurs more often because there is more money as countervalue. And that, as I see it, is completely fine.

these in total 26 pages are simply pure waste of time. AMEN^^