Preliminary contract with the general contractor for building a house after purchasing land

If the tax office views the purchase of the plot of land and the construction of the house as a single transaction, real estate transfer tax is due on everything. And especially if I commit to building with a specific [GU] when purchasing the plot, it is definitely factually connected.

I have incorrect information. I thought the two sellers had to have something together/ somehow work together.

Sorryyy ops:

However, it is not a uniform process (even from a layman's perspective).

A piece of house is bought and a piece of land. Both from different, unrelated parties. End of story, finito, Mickey Mouse. I would argue this all the way to the Federal Fiscal Court.

Because what else is a house supposed to be built on if not on a piece of land? And just because the contracted construction company looks for land with their expertise does not make it their land.

I would simply strike out the security clause in the notary contract without replacement.

I firmly assume (based on legal advice and various reports of experience here in the forum) that the real estate transfer tax is also payable if the house and the land are acquired from different parties. Even if there were no preliminary contract, the tax office would assume a direct allocation of the land purchase for the specific house construction. Providing counter-evidence would probably also be difficult, since the building plot was divided into five parts and now all five parties are building with the same [GÜ]. The only way out seems to be if you can conclusively prove that the house was only sought after the land purchase, for example by a planning order to an architect followed by a tender with multiple offers. Of course, it would be best if a different supplier emerged than the neighbor. In my case, this is unrealistic, I simply include the amount in the budget.

From my point of view, this is a so-called "combined acquisition process." This is supported by the fact that the property cannot be acquired without the "building commitment" (i.e., the "pre-contract"). The "mediation" of the property also took place through the general contractor.

I have much sympathy for arguments oriented toward separate processes, but this viewpoint is untenable from the outset. Only by chance will the tax office not see the property acquisition and the construction contract as a single unit. That would then be an error in processing/assessment by the responsible officer ... but that also happens.

In my opinion, there is no room here for divergent legal views on long-settled and adjudicated factual situations. Not even with the Federal Fiscal Court.

:

The mere inquiry to the tax office describing the actual facts anticipates the review/decision – in a negative sense. This effectively prevents a processing error. The legal situation is clear:

The developer conveys the property. Its acquisition is not possible without a building commitment to this developer. That means: No acquisition of the property without a "pre-contract."

What else is needed to convincingly prove an economic connection between property purchase and house construction? I can hardly think of anything stronger (exception: direct purchase of the property from the developer).