Property acquisition tax on a house not yet built - yes/no?

No, no real estate transfer tax on everything. The construction is: A sells a plot of land to B. A keeps the adjacent part. A wants to build a semi-detached house on his part. For this, he chose GU Z. A now demands from B: If you buy from me, you must commit to building a semi-detached house with me, and specifically with Z, since otherwise it won't work, I already selected Z. If you do that, then we have a deal. In my opinion, this is not a tied sale where land and house are sold as a package through Z. But the obligation to build with Z could also be regulated privately outside the notarial contract and thus not stir up trouble in the first place. K.

I once searched for this and found a ruling (Google: steuertipp-grunderwerbsteuer-wann-Baukosten-nicht-besteuert-werden - I am not allowed to link the site itself):

In my opinion, it follows that the real estate transfer tax is also due on the house if the obligation appears with the work contract in the purchase contract. Coordinated behavior that leads to the conclusion of the construction contract is present, as well as a prior offer of services, so I think one should plan for it that way. Or, as Nordlys suggests, handle this matter outside of the purchase contract.

In my opinion, it follows that the real estate transfer tax is also due on the house if the obligation with the contract for work appears in the purchase contract.

I agree with that too. But ...

The setup is: A sells a plot of land to B. A keeps the adjacent part. A wants to build a semi-detached house on his part. For that, he chose general contractor Z. A now demands from B: If you buy from me, you must commit to building a semi-detached house with me, and specifically with Z, because otherwise it won’t work, I’ve already chosen Z. If you agree, then we have a deal.

... I also agree there that this does not have to be seen as a tied sale.

Especially if A builds his half for personal use – and does not receive any verifiable remuneration or equivalent benefit from the general contractor – the tax authorities should not suspect any trickery.

Could it be that A is quite faithfully a reader of my mantra that semi-detached houses should be planned in a coordinated way? ;-)

Especially if A builds his half for his own use - and receives at least no verifiable compensation or equivalent benefit from the general contractor - the tax authorities should not suspect any trickery.

Only the OP has to prove that in case of doubt - without knowing the contracts. Just the thought that a semi-detached house is cheaper than a detached house...

This is definitely a tied transaction. We had exactly this situation, with the difference that we owned the land and wanted to select the construction contractor ourselves. Therefore, we thoroughly informed ourselves at the time. I quote from the information provided by our tax advisor, who had informed himself in turn:

"With the version of § 8 paragraph 2 sentence 2 of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act (Grunderwerbsteuergesetz) valid from 1.4.99, the legislator explicitly adopted the principles developed by the BFH (Federal Fiscal Court) regarding a uniform subject matter of performance or a uniform contractual framework into the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act.


Accordingly, the object of the acquisition transaction is not the undeveloped, but the developed property, if there is such a close factual connection between the contracts, on the one hand concerning the acquisition of the property and on the other hand the later development of the property, that from an objective point of view the acquirer acquires the developed property as a single subject matter of performance on the basis of a uniform contractual framework.


The BFH first focused on the feature "of the factual connection between several contracts" in its judgment of 18.10.89 (BStBl II 90, 181 and 183) and specified its opinion in various subsequent judgments (BFH 23.11.94, BStBl II 95, 331; BFH 27.10.99, BStBl II 00, 34). From this, the following statements arise regarding the determination of the real estate transfer tax consideration:

A factual connection can also exist if several persons on the seller's side act as contracting parties. It is not decisive whether the claims for transfer of the property and for construction of the building are legally directed against different persons. What is decisive, however, is whether the circumstances of the cooperation of these different persons result in the acquirer receiving a developed property.


A close factual connection between the contracts with the consequence that the acquirer receives the developed property as a single subject matter of performance exists in particular if the acquirer (at the latest) upon conclusion of the property purchase contract is no longer free in his decision about the "if" and "how" of a development vis-à-vis the seller.

If there is a close factual connection between the property purchase contract and the construction contract, the subject matter of the acquisition process relevant for real estate transfer tax assessment is the property in developed condition. In these cases, the real estate transfer tax consideration (assessment basis) includes all services provided by the acquirer to the property seller and to third parties to acquire ownership of the property in its future (developed) condition."

A close factual connection is considered to exist, for example, if A buys a property from B and commits to conclude a contract for work with C, who is already contractually connected to B in this regard, for the construction of a house. The tax offices would also proceed very strictly and restrictively here. One would be under the burden of proof to show that exactly what was agreed was not agreed. Even if one regulated it privately beyond the notarized property purchase contract, the private arrangement would be invalid in case of doubt - however it is designed - since one would have to deny its existence in order to avoid paying the real estate transfer tax on the house. But if I have understood TE correctly, this was recorded in the purchase contract?! Then, unfortunately, the real estate transfer tax would probably also have to be paid on the house.

Sorry for a brief OT, but...

Could A perhaps be a very obedient reader of my mantra that semi-detached houses should be planned in a coordinated way? ;-)

We definitely do. You know how it turned out ;) We only had it checked out of kindness towards the potential buyer. A recent discouraging example at the construction site diagonally opposite: One plot, partitioning according to ownership of condominium rights, one semi-detached house. Half I with a local all-round contractor from the village, who is "famous" for "I'll do everything super cheap" - solid Poroton brick, basement, and seriously behind schedule. Now he should at least have the roof on before the long-scheduled Half II arrived: timber frame from Bien-Zenker, no basement. A dream. The roof on the solid building is still a long way off, the prefabricated house now "finished" stands there, the joint between the houses is 10 cm wider at the top than at the bottom, even a blind person with a cane can tell something was pieced together oddly, the neighbors have been sharply at odds for months before moving in. A dream. That doesn't help the OP either, but there are far worse things than having two semi-detached halves built by one contractor. If it can happen simultaneously, there might even be a *small* saving effect.