Financing options for acquiring grandfather's house

For this reason, I would also handle the pure purchase price completely normally. So take out a loan and pay out siblings and father.

If the father inherits from his father and then sells this house to one of his children, why does the child have to pay out the siblings already?

The father could also sell it to a stranger and squander the money. That is not yet the father's inheritance, but the grandfather's.

Or am I thinking wrong, I’m just curious :)

That is simply fair if all siblings benefit equally from the inheritance. Because it is foreseeable that the father will eventually inherit the house from his father. Legally it may not be mandatory, but morally it is necessary to involve all siblings here.

I would take another one ;)

I am quite sure that the OP is the psychotherapist himself and only mentioned this as background to explain why he already has a tax advisor he can ask... ;)

If the father inherits from his father and then sells this house to one of his children, why does the child have to pay out the siblings?

You don't have to do it that way, but at least in the cases I know, that was the wish. So that the house was gifted early to one child and the other children were paid out in the process. In principle, if the father inherits the house alone, he can do whatever he wants with it. As far as I know, he can also gift it to the child without the others having to receive anything (without guarantee). He can sell it (within the family or outside), if he sells it internally well below value, then that is partly a gift again. The paying out is something many do so that no one feels disadvantaged and to avoid family disputes.

So that the house was given in advance as a gift to one child and the other children were paid out in the process. In principle, if the father alone inherits the house, he can do what he wants with it. As far as I know, he can also give it as a gift to the child without the others having to receive anything (no guarantee).

The compulsory portion supplementary claim only comes into play if one inherits less at the time of death than the compulsory portion. All gifts or cheaper sales from the last 10 years count towards the inheritance (reduced by 10% each year). However, there are plenty of tricks to prevent this. Since we do not know how old the father is and what other assets he has, giving advice here is difficult. The estate should be fairly divided upon death, but it does not have to be precisely divided 30 years in advance.

In principle, if the father inherits the house alone, he can do whatever he wants with it. As far as I know, he can also give it to the child as a gift without the others having to receive anything (no guarantee).

That would be my understanding. But I just wonder why people think that everything always has to be distributed to the others or that anything else is morally reprehensible / unacceptable, etc.

For example, I also don’t understand the whole thing with the compulsory portion, but that’s enough off-topic now :)