House Purchase - Complicated Situation

When it comes to inheritance, it is primarily not about everyone getting the same thing, but about implementing the testator’s wishes as far as possible.

That means in practically every family, siblings should also accept if the father’s will is for the house to remain in the family, and that it may be sold to the one who doesn’t yet own a house possibly at a lower price. As already mentioned – the father can basically do whatever he wants here!

You write that you can afford financing up to 550k. Let’s assume the house is worth 600k, then one possibility would be that the father sells it to you for 400k and at the same time a will is created in which the remaining 200k is recorded as a "gift" to you as an advance inheritance with waiver of compulsory portion (which means you inherit nothing later!). From the 400k that the father receives from you, he buys himself a nice new apartment. This can then later be inherited by the other two brothers.

The idea of mutually renting apartments/house basically only benefits the state. The apartment is supposed to be newer, meaning you will hardly have advertising/renovation costs besides the interest. With 66% or also 50% rent, the apartment will (or must) generate income -> taxes.
The house then also generates income for your father’s pension, he will not want to bear major renovation costs, he hardly has advertising costs -> taxes.
Get detailed advice from a tax consultant on this, but at first glance I see tax disadvantages there and no advantages.

You cannot afford a house on your own, and although your father’s house is not your dream home, if it is affordable, it would still be a good option.
So you would gain a clear advantage, which in itself is not a problem.
But – what advantage would the father have? Would you take over the possibly necessary care of the father? That is, for me as an older person, a significant question, which I have not read anything about so far.

Well, that definitely wouldn’t happen with my siblings, but every family is different. The OP has to know how it will work for him.

You know the saying about the horse and the pharmacy :D I have experienced family dramas, and it is like in marriage, often the supposed model marriages end in divorce. People change, new ones come along, life circumstances change... unfortunately, I have also experienced things myself that I could never have imagined.

If there were a way where everyone would be equal as things stand now, I would of course choose that immediately – but unfortunately it does not exist.

There actually is one – purchase at market price, however...

I am looking for a way to still arrange everything somewhat fairly.

You use two words here that prevent the well-sounding intention:
The word “somewhat” already implies that it would NOT be fair, but only “somewhat” fair. Any deviation from fairness immediately turns into unfairness; you shouldn’t fool yourself otherwise and, with high probability, that is how it would be perceived around you. Examine yourself and think the other way around... a brother moves into the house and receives xy...
The second is the “I” in this context. You yourself certainly cannot act neutrally here, since you yourself are in the focus.

As I have often missed, the top priorities are not considered extensively, namely what the father himself wants for himself and his life and how I myself can contribute to making this nicer and more pleasant for him. WHAT is best for the father?
We are talking here about his money and his house and his inheritance, pushing things here and calculating things there...
Would the father move out even without your house wish?
In all these discussions, to me, this decisive point always goes by too quickly; most recently we had a case where demolition/new construction of grandma’s house was already planned AND approved by the building authority while grandma still sat in her rocking chair knitting socks.

You already know about the horse and the pharmacy :D

I know it, but in my case I speak from experience. :)

I know that, but in my case I speak from experience. :)

That's a good thing and also pleasing, thankfully that exists too! I lived in the house with my parents, yet each completely on their own, I would always do it that way again.

Good thought but a conversion/extension of the house is unfortunately not possible, we have already considered that.

Why is that not possible? Explain in more detail. Maybe we can find a suitable idea here.....

One more idea: You all buy the house and you pay the siblings the imaginary inheritance practically as a rent-to-own over time...

When inheriting, it's primarily not about everyone getting the same thing, but about implementing the wishes of the deceased as far as possible.

That means in practically every family, siblings should accept if the father's wish is that the house stays in the family, and that it may be sold cheaper to the one who doesn't yet own a house. As already written – the father can basically do whatever he wants here first!

You write that you can manage financing up to 550k. Let's assume the house is worth 600k, then one possibility would be that the father sells it to you for 400k and at the same time a will is created stating that the remaining 200k is a "gift" to you as an advance inheritance with mandatory portion waiver (meaning you won't inherit anything later!).
From the 400k that the father receives from you, he buys himself a nice new apartment. This can then later be inherited by the other two brothers.

The idea of mutually renting the apartments/house really only benefits the state. The apartment is supposed to be newer, meaning you will have hardly any advertising/renovation costs besides the interest. At 66% or even 50% rent, the apartment must generate income -> taxes.
The house will also provide your father with income for retirement, he will probably not want to bear larger renovation costs, has hardly any advertising costs -> taxes.
Get exact advice from a tax advisor on this, but at first glance, I see tax disadvantages rather than advantages.

well, that's more theory^^

when the testator is no longer there, the "corpse picking" begins