House on parents' property - inheritance problems?

From a control freak, I expect a will that is already yellowed

Maybe not. With only one child, one might also think there is no need to arrange anything. Or simply a boring "Berliner Testament."

More interesting, but perhaps too personal, is the question of how the father thinks about the case where there are no "own" grandchildren and where the inheritance is then allowed to go.

The "Berliner Testament" would actually be unfavorable because, in the worst case, two inheritances would occur shortly one after the other and inheritance tax would be charged twice. Therefore, it is not regulated that way here. The legal succession is fine. If Dad dies first, Mom inherits half and I inherit half. She lives in the old house and does not have to pay inheritance tax on it, I live in the new house and do not have to pay inheritance tax on it either. The forestry operation (a forest is always a forestry operation) is also inherited tax-free since it is being continued. So in the end, inheritance tax is only charged on the leased agricultural land, and both of us have a tax exemption of 400,000 EUR each. You just have to make sure that the valuation of the field includes not only its market value but also the rather low lease price. In Brandenburg there is an extreme difference between sale prices and lease prices.

If Mom dies first, it looks different. Since she owns nothing of the real estate, she also has nothing to bequeath there. The burden for me would then be significantly higher.

It will probably come down to us dividing our residential property physically, and virtually dividing the field and forest areas into thirds. But that still has to be clarified within the framework of tax advice. Even the tax consultant did not know that a house always belongs to whoever owns the land...

By the way, the fact that there are no own grandchildren is not a problem for him. He sees it rather positively: That way I can choose myself whom to pass it on to someday. We know enough examples from the environment where it would have been better if the people were not related...

If Dad dies first, Mom inherits half and I inherit half

But also the other way around.
This includes everything at first (cash, real estate, or a compensation payment from the real estate) and notary fees are also incurred.
If the total amount exceeds the tax exemption limit, inheritance tax is also due.

If your family now gives you a part in advance (under the exemption limit), you will also have notary costs but the estate becomes smaller. Thus, you might fall below the inheritance tax exemption limit.

It’s no use saving the cents if in the end the euros are left behind.

If Muddern dies first, it looks different. Since she has heard nothing about the real estate, she also has nothing to inherit there.

Ouch. Apparently your parents are still mentally fully married in the Adenauer era.

If Vadder dies first, Muddern inherits half and I inherit half.
[...] It will probably come down to us actually dividing our residential property, and virtually tripartitioning the arable and forest land.

I always find it shocking how willingly the tax authorities are fattened with inheritance taxes just to avoid dealing even a little with the topics of foundations and real estate companies. Private real estate without any form of a replica of a fideicommissum becomes a little more state land with every inheritance.

Even the tax advisor didn’t know that a house always belongs to whoever owns the land…

This has already been explained here, that the tax-related and ownership-related attributions do not have to coincide.

The statutory succession is fine. If Dad dies first, Mom inherits half and I inherit half.

Isn't your mother registered in the land register??? Not even for the residential properties? Actually, she should be. Then the normal case would be that 50% already belongs to her, and only 50% is inherited, so that in the end she holds 75%, you 25%.

Actually, it should be her. Then the normal case would be that 50% already belongs to her anyway, and only 50% is inherited, so that in the end she holds 75%, you 25%.

That’s why I wrote, mentally still married in the Adenauer era. Morally, in my opinion, even without the formal equalization as usual in the course of a divorce, the gain earned by the sole wife should be transferred. The dependence of the surviving wife on the widow’s pension culturally originates from the time when marital rape was not punishable. Sorry, but as a socially conditioned 68er who sits during urination, that really gets on my nerves.