á Is it common to buy land and pay part of the price in cash?
Created on: 14 Feb 2018 12:53
V
Vanyleon87
Hello,
Iâm not sure if this is the right place, but we need some help. Hereâs 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 notaryâs waiting room, so she doesnât 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? Weâre not sure if this could be considered tax evasion, which of course is completely unacceptable!
Thank you very much for your help.
Iâm not sure if this is the right place, but we need some help. Hereâs 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 notaryâs waiting room, so she doesnât 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? Weâre not sure if this could be considered tax evasion, which of course is completely unacceptable!
Thank you very much for your help.
Do you have any of this in writing? Of course, that would be a bit risky, but one could mentionâalthough I would definitely not do this in writingâthat this information could potentially be passed on. If they act difficult and you had something in your hands, you could respond in kind.
Otherwise, it will probably be difficult, as they are unlikely to back down.
Otherwise, it will probably be difficult, as they are unlikely to back down.
C
chand198614 Feb 2018 15:53cschiko schrieb:
Of course, this is a bit risky, but one couldâalthough I definitely wouldnât put this in writingâpoint out that it could be passed on. If they act difficult, and you had something concrete, you could fight back.Nonsense. You have nothing, and responding to bad behavior with bad behavior is not a solution. Besides, the arrangement suggested by the lady would make you accomplices in tax evasion. You couldnât implicate her without implicating yourselves.
Move on, case closed. You shouldnât get involved in such nonsense.
No one will pursue her for past actions because potential buyers of previous transactions wonât report anything for the reasons mentioned above. Threats are therefore mostly empty.
Of course, sheâs putting pressure now. She probably wonât have many clients willing to support her âbusiness model.â
Just make it clear that this would constitute tax evasion for both parties, and you wonât be part of it.
B
Bieber081514 Feb 2018 16:05Vanyleon87 schrieb:
The sale would be private. Well, I think the lady is aware since she professionally buys, renovates, and resells houses and land.Then letâs assume this property is indeed being sold privately. In my opinion, the alleged full knowledge of her actions makes the situation even worse.toxicmolotow schrieb:
The buyer also "saves" on notary fees and property transfer tax in this scenario. So itâs not just aiding and abetting, but possibly tax evasion on their own part as well.Exactly, I had forgotten that initially!chand1986 schrieb:
Forget it, case closed. You shouldnât get involved in crap like this.+1As the saying goes: Once someone lies, you donât believe them again. I think anyone involved in such shady dealings doesnât play fair in general. I wouldnât buy a (used) car or a plot of land from this seller, whether paying cash or otherwise, it doesnât matter.
The "sham transaction" (purchase at 100) would be null and void according to § 117 I of the Building Code.
The actually "intended" legal transaction (purchase at 200) would only be valid (§ 117 II Building Code) if its validity requirements are met, especially regarding form, meaning that notarization of all facts must be observed. The intended transaction would be formally void without notarization (§ 311 b Building Code), as it is not notarized.
However, it isâexceptionally and only for legal certainty; otherwise, the principle would require a new transaction (§ 141 I Building Code)âcurable according to § 312 b I 2 Building Code, specifically through conveyance and entry in the land register.
It remains, however, a tax offense.
The actually "intended" legal transaction (purchase at 200) would only be valid (§ 117 II Building Code) if its validity requirements are met, especially regarding form, meaning that notarization of all facts must be observed. The intended transaction would be formally void without notarization (§ 311 b Building Code), as it is not notarized.
However, it isâexceptionally and only for legal certainty; otherwise, the principle would require a new transaction (§ 141 I Building Code)âcurable according to § 312 b I 2 Building Code, specifically through conveyance and entry in the land register.
It remains, however, a tax offense.
V
Vanyleon8714 Feb 2018 18:02Thank you all for your help. We were really skeptical, but thanks to you, we are now sure that we wonât buy it!!! Thank you
Friends sold a plot of land to neighbors in a similar way 25 years ago. However, the remaining money was supposed to be handed over in cash the next day during a meeting. This, however, did not happen. When asked, the buyer was quite surprised and said, "Why should you still get money from me? We settled everything through the notary." The two families have been bitterly hostile to each other ever since.
Similar topics