Developer or general contractor! Safety?

We would have an independent building expert from TÜV or DEKRA inspect and accept it!

When building with a developer, as far as I know, you do not have the right of possession during the realization phase because you do not own the land. This only applies upon transfer of the finished work, meaning that beforehand the developer CAN prohibit you from bringing an expert to the construction site... up to the point that they deny you access to the construction site until the work is completed. This should be clear to anyone building with a developer.

Personally, I have never liked building with a developer, for the reason above, but also because I would hate paying real estate transfer tax on everything, i.e. also on all your special requests/services that come with the fixed price. It wouldn’t be for me...

Access to the construction site should of course also be regulated in the [Bauträgerkaufvertrag]. No real estate transfer tax applies to special requests agreed upon after the purchase contract. However, in general, it is not clear to me how this post is helpful for the OP, who is not buying from the [Bauträger]...

Does not have to be clear to you either what might be interesting for others who read the thread and have the same question.

That access rights should/can be contractually clarified requires the knowledge that not doing so can lead to problems. If everyone had this insight, we wouldn’t need forums...

Regardless, this can also be relevant when building with the GU/GÜ, because there does not even have to be an explicit, formal contractual relationship between GU/GÜ and land purchase. In many cases, tax offices assume that a “unified contractual arrangement” exists and demand the payment on the total purchase price. That means if there is any kind of connection to the GU/GÜ, that is sufficient. For example, the GU/GÜ has a land search service and mediates land. To me, it sounds like the OP wouldn’t have gotten the land or wouldn’t have become aware of it without the GU... that is enough for the tax office here. Not because I’m making it up, but because this information was given upon inquiry.

You are free to see it differently and give the tax office other information. They could interpret it as tax evasion. Maybe it’s worth inquiring with the tax office before the purchase...

And also what all counts as the measurement basis. Because what you claim is definitely not the case here. Included here is the inventory inseparably connected with the house for the purpose of living; and that includes, for example, sanitary objects, and in part also built-in kitchens (if not explicitly excluded)!

This lecture does not refute my statements made above regarding the purchase from the property developer. That in the present [GU] constellation real estate transfer tax is incurred on the entire amount (house & land) was not disputed by me. Even the TE has already explicitly stated this fact.

However, I must revise my statement regarding the exemption from real estate transfer tax for subsequent special requests in the case of a developer purchase in this generality!

We thought we were buying a complete package of land with a house on it! For us, that was a developer! However, now it turns out that we are supposed to buy the land separately and the house construction is carried out through a general contractor! That may have been the case all along and we just didn’t get it! Now we are extremely unsettled because we don’t exactly know what this means for us now!

I interpret this as meaning that 1) from your point of view, the "developer" model = seller of the land-house package would have been the desired solution, and 2) now the developer (possibly appearing as two separate companies) prefers to make two partial deals with you. I consider that, with the consequences outlined here

Regardless, this can also be relevant when building with the general contractor (GU/GÜ), since there does not even have to be an explicit, formal contractual connection between the general contractor and the land purchase. In many cases, tax offices assume that a "unified contract" exists and require the submission based on the total purchase price. That is, if there is any kind of connection to the general contractor, that is sufficient. For example, the general contractor has a land search service and mediates plots of land. To me, it sounds as if the OP would not have gotten the land or been made aware of it without the general contractor… that is enough for the tax office here. Not because I invented it, but because this information was given upon inquiry.

to be a concealed builder model, which the tax authorities, in my opinion, rightly classify as abusive structuring. For you, this means paying VAT on the house, and having to wait a long time to have this offset against the property transfer tax. Furthermore, if the tax office sees a commercial tax evasion by the actual developer, they can impose additional claims and legal costs that may push them into insolvency, which in turn poses a risk to the completion (at least the later guarantee) of the house on your land. Then you end up with a plot of land with a construction ruin, which the financing bank surely did not expect. I would not want to do business with such tightrope walkers.