Hello everyone,
We are currently buying a house, and something very strange happened that I’m not sure how to handle.
A bit of background: after a long search and countless viewings, we finally managed to get a house.
The viewing had to be arranged at very short notice, and there was no time for my partner to join. (Luckily, I recorded everything on video.)
My partner never saw the house from the inside but was still convinced by the videos and the location, so we signed the purchase contract.
Now to the situation:
We met the real estate agent (almost) for the first time when signing the purchase contract; before that, there were only a few phone calls where he requested the financing confirmation and informed us about the notary appointment.
All other contact and the viewing were conducted with the neighbor, who is a friend of the owner.
Shortly before the notary appointment, the agent wanted to meet again. He then offered me to pay the €20,000 (about $21,500) commission in cash right after the notary appointment to avoid taxes, which could save us almost €3,000 (about $3,200).
(I have to admit, at the time I thought he meant we could save the 3% VAT, so I said it probably shouldn’t be that much.)
I declined the offer, which obviously didn’t please him...
Later, after talking to someone else, I realized that he was actually suggesting an undeclared cash payment, completely without paying 16% or 19% VAT.
A quick calculation confirmed that we would have paid about €17,000 (about $18,300) in total.
Still, I was glad to refuse because we included the commission in our financing and would have had no proof of payment.
Now here’s the strange part:
We have just received an invoice for the full €20,000 (about $21,500), which states that no VAT is due due to the small business regulation (Kleinunternehmerregelung).
This confuses me a lot. If he doesn’t have to charge VAT, how could he make the previous offer?
The company looks well-established, offers many services, and according to the website has been around for 20 years. (In theory, it could still be possible that he qualifies as a small business under VAT rules.)
I don’t understand any of this.
At the same time, he seems to be a very close friend of the owner, and we don’t want to upset him since we haven’t taken possession of the house yet.
The payment deadline on the invoice is the day after tomorrow.
I would appreciate any advice.
Best regards
We are currently buying a house, and something very strange happened that I’m not sure how to handle.
A bit of background: after a long search and countless viewings, we finally managed to get a house.
The viewing had to be arranged at very short notice, and there was no time for my partner to join. (Luckily, I recorded everything on video.)
My partner never saw the house from the inside but was still convinced by the videos and the location, so we signed the purchase contract.
Now to the situation:
We met the real estate agent (almost) for the first time when signing the purchase contract; before that, there were only a few phone calls where he requested the financing confirmation and informed us about the notary appointment.
All other contact and the viewing were conducted with the neighbor, who is a friend of the owner.
Shortly before the notary appointment, the agent wanted to meet again. He then offered me to pay the €20,000 (about $21,500) commission in cash right after the notary appointment to avoid taxes, which could save us almost €3,000 (about $3,200).
(I have to admit, at the time I thought he meant we could save the 3% VAT, so I said it probably shouldn’t be that much.)
I declined the offer, which obviously didn’t please him...
Later, after talking to someone else, I realized that he was actually suggesting an undeclared cash payment, completely without paying 16% or 19% VAT.
A quick calculation confirmed that we would have paid about €17,000 (about $18,300) in total.
Still, I was glad to refuse because we included the commission in our financing and would have had no proof of payment.
Now here’s the strange part:
We have just received an invoice for the full €20,000 (about $21,500), which states that no VAT is due due to the small business regulation (Kleinunternehmerregelung).
This confuses me a lot. If he doesn’t have to charge VAT, how could he make the previous offer?
The company looks well-established, offers many services, and according to the website has been around for 20 years. (In theory, it could still be possible that he qualifies as a small business under VAT rules.)
I don’t understand any of this.
At the same time, he seems to be a very close friend of the owner, and we don’t want to upset him since we haven’t taken possession of the house yet.
The payment deadline on the invoice is the day after tomorrow.
I would appreciate any advice.
Best regards
Wolkensieben12 Jan 2021 16:19Snowy36 schrieb:
Is this just a guess that it works that way, or do you actually know? I've always been curious about this...What is your intention with the question?Wolkensieben12 Jan 2021 16:24aero2016 schrieb:
And where does it say that account balances or transactions may be accessed/can be accessed? It’s stated above. Or you can search online yourself. Or get advice. Or read the terms and conditions.
That’s how I understand it; if you interpret it differently, that’s no problem for me.
I personally don’t mind if the government looks at my account—maybe they’ll cry when they see it, who knows.
Wolkensieben schrieb:
It’s clearly stated above. Or you can look it up yourself. Or get advice. Or read the terms and conditions.
This is how I understood it; if you interpret it differently, that’s fine with me.
I personally don’t mind if the government looks into my account; maybe they’ll regret it when they do, who knows. Nothing you claim is written there. Instead, it says that the authority must comply with a request and that the requesting agency must verify the existing conditions for access.
The authority to do so is therefore based on the respective legal right of intervention of the authority.
Wolkensieben12 Jan 2021 18:32[QUOTE="Joedreck schrieb:
It does not say any of what you claim. Rather, it translates to them being required to comply with a request, and the requesting authority must verify the existing conditions for the inspection.
The authority is thus derived from the respective regulatory power of the agency.I copied something from an agency and pasted it here, adding my own interpretation on how I understand it. That authorities can request account transactions if there is a legitimate interest.
If it appears differently to you, that’s fine. I have no problem with that.
Wolkensieben schrieb:
I copied something from an authority and pasted it here, then added my own interpretation of it. That authorities can request account transactions if there is legitimate interest.
If it appears differently to you, that’s perfectly fine. I have no problem with that. Funny 🙂
Wolkensieben schrieb:
I copied something from an authority and pasted it here, adding my own interpretation of how I understand it. That authorities can request account transactions if there is a legitimate interest.
If your experience is different, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. alternative facts? That’s nonsense, what you’re saying.