Property acquisition tax notice for land same contract document

It is absurd but it is definitely handled that way and is legally permissible.

That is not correct or it was explained to you misleadingly.

**A separate treatment and thus tax only on the land are _only still_ considered if the new owner looks for a suitable construction company themselves and there is no connection to the seller of the property in this process.

***It does not matter when the property purchase was made. Only the proof that there is no economic interrelation between the property acquisition/purchase and the later construction company/provider prevents real estate transfer tax on house & land from having to be paid.

**my homepage
***BFH (e.g. ruling of 23.8.2006, II R 42/04, BFH/NV 2007 p. 760 and decision of 2.4.2009, II B 157/08, BFH/NV 2009 p. 1146)


Rhineland greetings

Construction expert, unfortunately you are on the wrong track .... it has been confirmed to me several times and there have already been some rulings on this matter in recent years. Google provides a lot of material on the topic....

I also see no justification for this approach between the paragraphs, but the fact is that it is often handled this way.

As already mentioned, there is definitely no economic connection between the seller and the construction supervision/company/etc. According to Epi's hints, I would therefore have to be lucky and only pay tax on the land portion.

Unfortunately, I can't find it spontaneously now, but when I recently asked Google about the topic, I found some (partly confusing) approaches from the tax offices regarding this. For example, one explanation read roughly as follows: "If the construction project stands and falls with the land purchase, then a unified contract framework must be assumed and real estate transfer tax must be paid on both the land and the house." This is quoted from my memory, but I definitely read the phrase "... stands and falls ...". Unfortunately, I just can't find it anymore. Does anyone of you know such a statement?

Are there any new insights here?
What b_user writes, I am also reading more and more when I Google...

Current situation for me:
Application for a plot of land from the city (whether we will get it is uncertain). At the same time, we are of course in talks with potential construction companies about what the house will cost us and are considering securing the 2017 prices now before it gets even more expensive in 2018 with the new regulations...

But if we sign the house construction contract now (with a reservation clause, validity only if we get the plot), even before we have the plot, "we are also contractually bound." At least one-sidedly on the part of the house construction contract.

The construction company and the city as the seller of the land are of course not economically connected... But what you read is that the tax office now considers it sufficient that there is an obligation to build within 6 months from the city and, surprise, also the intention to build (yes, why else would I buy a plot?!)

Only the notarized contract was sent to the tax office. Apparently, nothing was evident from it. Therefore, the notice was issued without the building. If the tax office had no knowledge, the property could be amended according to [173 AO] within the assessment period. Regardless, you might also have an obligation to correct according to [153 AO]. In the worst case, [370 AO].

Was the construction contract and the property necessarily linked?