Hidden property owner model - real estate transfer tax/value-added tax

Good day everyone,

I have a few questions regarding the topic of the hidden client model.

If you google this topic, you are overwhelmed with warnings from notaries / lawyers or real estate websites.

Basically, it always comes down to the same points:

-The Real Estate Agent and Developer Ordinance is no longer valid.
- Property transfer tax can supposedly be saved. A misconception because VAT is added and possibly property transfer tax recalculated.

Am I overlooking other risks? Because I really don't understand the big risk. In the end, it’s a situation as if I am building on my own land?! (okay, here I can still freely choose the developer)

You can link an installment plan with the construction contractor to the Real Estate Agent and Developer Ordinance and pay accordingly after the respective construction service is performed.
I also assume it is absolutely necessary to check the construction service description for corresponding cost traps so that unpleasant additional construction costs are avoided.
You can simply pay the property transfer tax or declare it accordingly.

Can you think of any further disadvantages?

Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t want to sugarcoat the model. Unfortunately, experience shows that this is increasingly common practice and many plots have such a coupling agreement.

Best regards

Icy

PS and for the sake of completeness:

Advantages – yes, there are some with this model as well
Because the buyer in the general contractor model is already the owner of the land and is thereby by law necessarily the owner of the building
(as far as it has progressed). Because things firmly connected to the ground are essential parts of the property and
are always owned by the property owner (§ 94 Building Code). If the general contractor goes bankrupt, for example, during the construction phase, the buyer can isolate and terminate the general contractor agreement and then complete the construction with another contractor

What exactly do you want to achieve?

I have found a very beautiful piece of land which is being developed from farmland to building land by XYZ GmbH together with the municipality. However, I would have to build with ABC GmbH, which belongs to the son of XYZ GmbH. Although both companies are not legally connected, as far as I understand, this is not relevant in the case of the concealed client model.

I want to understand the risks and thus be able to assess them for myself. Legally, I do not want to enter a grey area here...

You will have to pay real estate transfer tax on land and house. Otherwise, everything will probably proceed as is usual with GU/GÜ. If you really don't want to do that, you can ask if they will release the commitment for an additional charge.

The broker and developer ordinance is no longer valid.

How do you come to that conclusion?

okay, here I can still choose the developer freely

If you can choose him freely, he is (in the legal relationship to you, regardless of whether he is active as a mixed BT-GU) not a developer träger.

Okay, I was already aware of the tax issue. I will try to see if he will waive an additional charge for the binding!

- Because then it is a contract for work to which the Building Code applies and not the Broker and Developer Ordinance. You can just google it, it is explained legally in detail there.

The definition of developer was simply chosen incorrectly by me.