Temporary VAT reduction by 3% until 31.12.2020

Yes, from the craftsman's perspective, it is definitely to be viewed differently. However, as a craftsman, I would invoice the client and not some end customer...

Whereas, as a craftsman, I would bill the client and not just some end customer...

But that’s just how the structure is. It actually has advantages for all parties. The customer does not have the usual general contractor surcharge on the sampling with the subcontractors.

In addition, the bureaucracy for all the back-and-forth billing of the general contractor’s standard products is eliminated, which hardly anyone uses anymore anyway.
Credit Ideal Standard washbasin -40€
Charge washbasin company XYZ 1,200€

At least with us, the billing for the additional sampling was also done directly between the plumber/electrician and us.

The structure is just like that. It actually has advantages for all parties.

This is our first house, so I have no comparison, but I have to say that I really liked the approach so far. You don’t always have someone random on the phone but the employee responsible for each trade for us. In my opinion, that is really practical.

But to get back to the topic: Our contract defines that we have to do an acceptance of the trade. And according to the law, in a contract for work and services, the acceptance is decisive. I will call the company again, but everything very relaxed and factual. Since we already expected the money to be gone when signing the contract anyway, it doesn’t break our leg. It would just be a nice bonus on top.

But to get back to the topic: Our contract states that we have to carry out a handover of the trade.

If this is defined in your contract, unfortunately it looks bad for you, since you wrote somewhere before that you signed a handover with the respective subcontractor (trade).

This means the VAT definitely arose with this handover, as partial services are to be assumed here.

Only if you mean the whole house with the handover of the trade does the matter look different.

It would be interesting to know what was agreed regarding the warranty. If the transfer of risk was made with the handover from the respective subcontractor, this also indicates effective partial services.

But to get back to the topic: In our contract it is defined that we have to carry out an acceptance of the work. And according to the law, in a contract for work and services, the acceptance is decisive.

Correct. And who signed the contract? Presumably you and your wife on one side and the house building company on the other. The "sub" probably not, because he probably has a (lump sum) contract with the house building company where the end customer is agreed as a different invoice recipient.

As I wrote right at the beginning, we will not be able to solve the problem here, since you have a special case where the contractual content is very important.

If this is defined like that in your contract, unfortunately it looks bad for you, since you wrote somewhere before that you signed an acceptance from the respective specialist company (trade).

This definitely means that the value-added tax arose with this acceptance, as partial services are assumed here.

I don't understand that now. That was exactly the point.

Correct. And who signed the contract? Probably you and your wife on one side and the house construction company on the other.
The "sub" probably not, because he probably has a (lump sum) contract with the house construction company, where the end customer is agreed as a different invoice recipient.

That's exactly right. I will wait and see what the conversation brings and will report back here. Maybe it will help one or the other.