ᐅ Is it common to buy land and pay part of the price in cash?
Created on: 14 Feb 2018 12:53
V
Vanyleon87
Hello,
I’m not sure if this is the right place, but we need some help. Here’s the situation: we found a piece of land privately where we want to build. However, the owner wants to do it so that only part of the amount is stated in the official purchase contract, and we would pay the rest in cash. (She mentioned maybe in an envelope in the notary’s waiting room, so she doesn’t have to pay tax on the full amount.)
We are very uncertain and find it strange that she wants to handle it this way. What do you think about that? We’re not sure if this could be considered tax evasion, which of course is completely unacceptable!
Thank you very much for your help.
I’m not sure if this is the right place, but we need some help. Here’s the situation: we found a piece of land privately where we want to build. However, the owner wants to do it so that only part of the amount is stated in the official purchase contract, and we would pay the rest in cash. (She mentioned maybe in an envelope in the notary’s waiting room, so she doesn’t have to pay tax on the full amount.)
We are very uncertain and find it strange that she wants to handle it this way. What do you think about that? We’re not sure if this could be considered tax evasion, which of course is completely unacceptable!
Thank you very much for your help.
chand, you give your assessment. I describe. First, perceive things as they are. Whether what is, is good, is another matter. What you say is correct. However, the description of reality is also accurate. And I believe it is also true that this can never be completely eliminated, except by drastic surveillance measures or by abolishing cash. The majority of people do not want either... I wonder why? Here we are again at the beginning... Karsten
C
chand198615 Feb 2018 10:35Nordlys schrieb:
chand, you evaluate. I describe.That's right. I evaluate what you describe. It seems we agree on the evaluation?
But your post also contains—humorously—a form of evaluation. To describe a clearly mafia-like approach in order to argue that it actually has nothing to do with the mafia is: amusing. And an evaluation.
What you describe is an arrangement of many complicit individuals connected through collective ignoring, forming a community that is primarily protected by its silence. What does that remind you of? You don’t have to actually kill someone to structurally do the same thing as the mafia.
The obvious problem is this: In illegal areas, certain things eventually become socially acceptable, even though they harm that very society. Doesn’t everyone do that? Including me...
Nordlys schrieb:
And I also think it’s true that this can never be completely stopped, except by drastic surveillance methods or by abolishing cash.Never completely, absolutely. But turning a widely tolerated breach of law back into a more or less stigmatized offense is not solely dependent on state enforcement power or the existence of cash. I don’t want to expand one or prohibit the other. But if all people who gladly use public services (and feel fully entitled to do so) would find it questionable to also block the funding of those services through illegal actions, we would make progress.
But then the term "moralist" always comes up as a complaint (which you may mean as a neutral description, but I see as an evaluation), and the argument dies. Who wants to be a moralist, be seen as one, or be associated with one?
Do we have different intuitions about these terms? To me, a moralist is not necessarily negative—it refers to someone who has moral principles. A "preacher of morality" (Moralapostel) is more negative because it implies a missionary zeal, a certain level of persistency. Then there is the fully negative term "hypocrite," meaning someone who presents themselves as moral but acts in the opposite way.
One more thing: in psychoanalysis, there is the concept of exaggerated defense. In other words, I completely condemn something and make a big fuss about it because I actually recognize it within myself but refuse to admit it. When I then discover it outside of myself, I react aggressively.
Example: hatred toward gay people is a denial of one's own homosexual tendencies. ----I wonder if this could also apply to tax matters? Smile.
Example: hatred toward gay people is a denial of one's own homosexual tendencies. ----I wonder if this could also apply to tax matters? Smile.
H
HilfeHilfe15 Feb 2018 11:49Silly question, but the purchase price of the plot is considered by the bank when determining the loan conditions.
If there are any undeclared cash flows, the bank will not count them positively as equity.
Likewise, there may be a lack of equity when it comes to the construction.
If there are any undeclared cash flows, the bank will not count them positively as equity.
Likewise, there may be a lack of equity when it comes to the construction.
C
chand198615 Feb 2018 12:57Nordlys schrieb:
Example: Hatred of gay people... is denial of one’s own homosexual tendencies.----I wonder if this also applies to tax matters? Smile.You can feel one thing without necessarily acting on something else because of it.
I too would find such a "tax-saving offer" superficially tempting.
Saving money, everyone does it anyway, the government is greedy and can’t manage the money properly anyway, better to be the villain than the fool (because otherwise someone else will take the deal), and so on.
Isn’t that what separates humans from animals: not following every impulse, but occasionally switching on the filter between the ears? Self-reflection can only be done by the mind, never by the gut feeling.