Sell apartments or keep them?

1/6 of the whole is without restriction mine

Good, with that you have your creditable income share for the bank.

The OP is usufructuary.

Girls :) - let's let off some steam again.

The OP already wrote in the meantime that 1/6 is owed to him (as well as his brother) WITHOUT restrictions.
From this I conclude that the usufruct right is registered for 2/3, therefore 4/6 of the rental properties. So only for the mother and the uncle.

Or can a usufruct right ONLY be registered for an entire object, so that the OP MUST become usufructuary for his part?

EDIT: I just saw your last statement . Then apparently a usufruct must actually be registered on the entire object here, which is then distributed proportionally.
However, I still don't understand why I can't apply my own usufruct share (the rental income that belongs to me from the usufruct) as income?

No, the income is allocated €15K to the original poster, €15K to the OP's brother, and €30K each to the mother and the uncle.

Correct, so exactly 1/6th.

However, understanding this is difficult if one does not grasp or consistently ignores the concept of usufruct combined with gift/anticipated inheritance. They have, here 99.9% for tax reasons (value of the transfer >€400K!), transferred to the children in advance.

Also correct. Reduction of the gifted value by the value of the usufruct (to be calculated using the mortality table) = basis for taxation

It is legally required (I'm writing this for the third time now!!!) that the remaining usufruct of the transferors in total must _not_ be 100%. Your argument is therefore ... as described multiple times ... invalid for legal reasons.
In this construct, the children must receive at least a 10% usufruct share, otherwise the tax office will not approve the deal.
Therefore, the children are both 50% owners and also usufructuaries, here with 1/6 which corresponds to approximately 16.6%, which is above 10%.

But the 1/6 comes from the community of heirs of the deceased uncle and not from the gift by the mother and living uncle?
And what would the mother and uncle be if they were neither owners nor usufructuaries but still entitled to the income? And why should the bank consider more than the €15K income?
Your argument is unclear to me.

But the 1/6 come from the inheritance community of the deceased uncle and not from the gift from the mother and the living uncle?

No. The 1/6 is the share from the income, ergo the share of the entire usufruct of the property (minus/plus any usufructs of residential rights). That has nothing to do with ownership. The ownership from the inheritance community has passed on 50% each to the two children/brothers.

Ownership and usufruct must be clearly separated here, whereby I suspect that one of the biggest misunderstandings lies at this point.

And why should the bank consider more than the 15K € income?

Counter-question 1: where did I claim that the bank must/could/should recognize more annual income? Correct - nowhere.
Counter-question 2: if you assume that 15K € could be recognized as income of the original poster (which your question implies), why does Nordanney set this value to zero? Because he does NOT want to recognize ANY of it.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

No. The 1/6 is the share from the income, ergo the share of the total usufruct of the property (minus/plus any residential usufructs). This has nothing to do with ownership. Ownership from the community of heirs has passed 50% each to the two children/brothers.

In my opinion, it reads differently in post 18,

I interpreted it as follows:
3 siblings each have a 1/3 share in the houses
one of them dies, but the heirs are not the two siblings, rather the nephews = so 1/6 for the original poster
afterwards, the uncle and the mother each gift their shares to the two children/nephews, taking into account the usufruct right

-> OP receives 1/6 from the community of heirs, 1/6 from the mother (from which the mother secures the usufruct right) and 1/6 from the uncle (from which the uncle secures the usufruct right)
Total ownership share 50%, but 2/3 of it with usufruct rights for mother and uncle

Due to the high land values, the tax exemption between mother and child is exceeded anyway.
By the splitting into uncle 1 - nephew, uncle 2 - nephew, and mother - child, several exemptions could be utilized at once.

However, I still do not understand why I cannot count my own usufruct share (the rental income to which I am entitled from the usufruct) as income?

No one except Nordanney understands/claims that. The 15,000€ appear on the tax return of both brothers as taxable income from income and expenses.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

In my opinion, it reads differently in post 18,

I interpreted it this way:
3 siblings each have a 1/3 share in the houses
one of them dies, but the heirs are not the two siblings, rather the nephews = so 1/6 for the OP
afterwards, the uncle and the mother each gift their share to the two children/nephews, taking into account the usufruct right

-> OP receives 1/6 from the community of heirs, 1/6 from the mother (from which the mother secures the usufruct right) and 1/6 from the uncle (from which the uncle secures the usufruct right)
Total ownership share 50%, but 2/3 of that with usufruct rights for mother and uncle

Fine. But where exactly is the difference? If the property yields 90K€ and 60K€ of that goes to the mother/uncle, each brother is left with 15K€, which appear on their tax records.

Nordanney sets this value to zero. Heaven knows why.

Regards
Dirk Grafe