Get PDF Grundsteuergesetz - GrStG (Deutschland) (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Grundsteuergesetz - GrStG (Deutschland) (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Grundsteuergesetz - GrStG (Deutschland) (German Edition) book. Happy reading Grundsteuergesetz - GrStG (Deutschland) (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Grundsteuergesetz - GrStG (Deutschland) (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Grundsteuergesetz - GrStG (Deutschland) (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

Material Collective Bargaining Agreements. Benefit Plans. Information Letter to Employees. Material Agreements. Outstanding Obligations or Liabilities. List of Insurance Policies. Transaction-related Fees. Actions Outside Ordinary Course of Business. English translation of the SPA. Recital F. Recital A.

Recital E. Recital G. Recital C. Consideration clause. Recital B. Recital AA. Recital D. Is by and among. Seller 1 and Seller 2 hereinafter also referred to. Benkley and Thomas C. With regard to the law of obligations, the sale and purchase of the Sold Interest shall be retroactively effective as of 1 June, The partnership interests of the Company are owned by Sellers as follows:.

Limited partner Kommanditist. The Company has heritable ground lease rights to the land on which the Hotel as defined below is situated, as follows:. This First Ground Lease has been registered in the land register for heritable building rights Erbbaugrundbuch at the district court Hann. This co-ownership share of the Company has been registered in the land register for part heritable building rights Teilerbbaugrundbuch at the district court Hann.

The Hotel is a four-star conference hotel. It has 93 rooms, of which 31 guestrooms are single rooms and 60 guestrooms are double rooms and 2 are Junior-Suites. Furthermore, there are 11 conference rooms. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement, as of the date hereof, each Seller jointly and severally agrees to sell the Sold Interests owned by it, as further set out in Recital B.

Date, and that the expiration of the Company on such date must be registered in the commercial register Handelsregister without undue delay. On the Closing Date, Sellers and Purchaser shall jointly cause to be made all respective filings required to be made with the competent commercial register Registergericht in the appropriate form. Seller 1 will continue to exist as a separate legal entity and the shares in it are not subject to this Agreement. Seller 1 will, on the Closing Date, also discontinue the function of being the general partner of the Company.

The Sold Interests are sold with the right to receive all undistributed profits of the Company for the current business year and prior business years.

Buying Options

If the payment date for any payment due to Seller 2 under the Seller-Financing shall be on a day that is not a Business Day, then such payment shall be due on the next following day. The Purchaser may pre-pay the outstanding principal balance of the Seller-Financing, with all accrued interest thereon to the date of payment, at any time or from time to time without penalty or premium. IV HGB, and. HGB, and. As per the terms of the Escrow Agreement, the fees associated with the Escrow Account shall be borne by the Purchaser.

Any payment shall be deemed to have been made upon receipt in the Escrow Account of the relevant amount in accordance with this Agreement. Escrow Account Information:. Konto Nr. BLZ Any payments to be made directly to any Seller by Purchaser or by Escrow Agent under the Escrow Agreement to any Seller shall be made to the following account:. Sellers Account Information:. Account Holder:. Sparkasse Hann. This mortgage shall serve as collateral under as set out in the Seller-Financing. Any such notice of disagreement shall specify, in reasonable detail, those items and amounts as to which Sellers disagree and state the grounds for such disagreement.

Such cooperation and assistance shall include, without limitation, the making available to the Accounting Firm of all relevant books and records of the Company and any other information relating to the Company without undue delay.


  • Bestselling Series?
  • Servicemeu;
  • Anne Bonny The Legend of a Female Pirate.
  • OBJEKTSTEUER - Definition and synonyms of Objektsteuer in the German dictionary;
  • Bluesy Rock Songbook: Guitar Play-Along Volume 73;
  • Aktuelle Steuertexte 2017 : Textausgabe - Rechtsstand: 15. August 2017;

The Accounting Firm shall limit its. The fees and disbursements of the Accounting Firm shall be shared between Sellers on the one hand and Purchaser on the other hand in proportion to their respective success and defeat as determined by the Accounting Firm. The effect of the waiver shall be limited to eliminating the need that the respective Closing Action is being taken at the Closing and shall not limit or prejudice any claims any Party may have with respect to any circumstances relating to such Closing Action not being taken pursuant to this Agreement.

The Discharge shall also include any and all loans and other. The withdrawal shall not limit or prejudice any claims of the withdrawing Party on the basis of any circumstances relating to the Closing Actions not being taken. Both Sellers have no legal incapacity, have had. The execution, delivery and performance by the Sellers of this Agreement, and the consummation by them of the Transactions, have been duly authorized, and no other partnership or other action on the part of the Sellers is necessary to authorize the execution, delivery and performance by them of this Agreement and the consummation by them of the Transactions described herein.

This Agreement has been duly executed by Sellers and Sellers shall duly execute and deliver each Closing Agreement. Assuming due authorization and execution by Purchaser, this Agreement constitutes, and each Closing Agreement shall constitute, a valid and binding agreement of each of the Sellers, enforceable against each of them in accordance with its terms herein.

Purchaser is aware that in this document,. The Company has not entered into any moratorium agreement or similar agreement with its creditors, nor has it stopped or suspended payment of its debts, become unable to pay its debts or otherwise become insolvent. The Sold Interests are duly authorized, validly issued and fully paid. Sellers are. The Sellers have not sold or issued any options or agreements to purchase or to sell the Sold Interests to any person or entity other than Purchaser. There are no silent partnerships in respect of the Company and no third party owns any indirect participations Unterbeteiligung in any of the Sold Interests or in the revenues or profits of the Company.

The Sellers will not take any action to cause the Company to, and the Company will not, make any distribution of cash, securities or property to the Sellers or to any other person or entity other than its creditors in accordance with current loan or trade agreements. There are no securities of the Company convertible into or exchangeable for interests in the Company. Neither the Sellers nor the Company have any obligation to issue any interests in the Company or securities convertible into or exchangeable for such interests, and no third party has any right whether absolute or contingent to acquire any such interests or securities.

There are no pre-emptive rights, rights of first refusal, options or other rights of any third party to purchase or acquire any real property or any other assets owned by the Company or to request the granting of any rights or encumbrances in such assets. Other than the Ground Lease Agreements, the Company does not lease any real estate and has no obligation to do so.

As of the date hereof, such excerpts correctly reflect all facts required to be registered therein, no applications for registration with the land register are pending and there are no facts which are not registered therein, but would require a registration. The Company has the right to use and occupy the Hotel and the Real Estate, as currently conducted, pursuant to all applicable planning, zoning or building Laws and the building permissions and is in exclusive and, as of the date hereof, undisturbed possession thereof. Neither a Seller directly or indirectly nor the Company has leased or granted any right to use or occupy all or any portion of the Hotel and the Real Estate to a third party.

The Hotel and the Real Estate have access to public roads, water supply, sewer facilities, electricity, gas, telephone, internet and other necessary public utilities. Neither the Company nor any Seller directly or indirectly is a party to any agreement providing for, or otherwise bound by, any covenant, restriction, burden or obligation adversely affecting the use, occupation or operation of the Hotel or any Real Estate by the Company including zoning and building restrictions. Neither the Company nor the Sellers have granted any mortgage, pledge, encumbrance or other security interest in the Hotel and the Real Estate, except as shown in the excerpts from the land register for the Real Estate, nor is it or the Sellers under any obligation to do so.

The current uses of the Hotel and the Real Estate, the occupancy thereof and the business operations therein comply with all material applicable building, zoning and land use requirements, and do not violate or conflict with any contractual obligations where such breach would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect to the Hotel or the Real Estate. The Hotel building has no mold and is not infested with sponge or wood worm Schwamm und Holzwurm. The Company does not own, lease, license or possess any fixed tangible assets which are not used in, or required for, its business as currently conducted and the disposal of which may result in material obligations for the Company.

All permits of public authorities necessary for the use of the. Hotel and the Real Estate and its buildings as it is being used currently have been obtained, and upon the Closing Date, will transfer to Purchaser without further action on the part of any Party. Such inventories are in accordance with past practice in substance, not obsolete and are substantially free from any defects and saleable or usable in the ordinary course of business, consistent with past practice.

No Seller owns any assets currently used by the Lessee in the operation of the Hotel. The Lessee does not own any assets currently used in the operation of the Hotel. The lessees have not notified the Company about defects of the Real Estate or the Hotel. There is no litigation with the lessees and the Sellers have no Knowledge of any claim pending or threatened against them or the Company by any lessee. There are no parts of the Real Estate.

The physical state of the Real Estate and the Hotel has never infringed public building and planning Law. No applications requesting planning permission for the Real Estate and the Hotel or parts thereof have ever been denied. There were never official investigations and examinations been carried out on or in connection with the Real Estate and the Hotel within the past five years, neither are such imminent or pending. No governmental authority has condemned the Hotel or the Real Estate, or has sought to acquire such property and the Sellers have no Knowledge of any pending or threatened claim by any governmental authority to take all or any portion of the Hotel or Real Estate.

All Company Intellectual Property is owned or purported to be owned by the Company, in each case, free and clear of all Liens. All assignments related to the Company Intellectual Property are complete and have been recorded with the relevant governmental authorities. The Company has been granted valid and continuing intellectual property licenses in written contracts to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, license and otherwise exploit, as the case may be, all licensed Company Intellectual Property as the same is made, used, sold, offered for sale, imported,. The Company Intellectual Property owned by or licensed to the Company include all of the Intellectual Property and technology sufficient to enable the Company to conduct its business in all material respects in the manner in which such business are currently conducted.

All Company Intellectual Property will be transferred to Purchaser as of the Closing Date without the need for any action on the part of any Party and without the need for any governmental or third party consents or approvals. The Company has taken reasonable measures to preserve and maintain the performance, security and integrity of the information technology systems and all software, information or data stored thereon.

The Company has provided sufficient disclosure with respect to its privacy policies and related practices, including providing any type of notice and obtaining any type of consent required by applicable Law. Department of the Treasury and the proceeds from this Transaction will not go, directly or indirectly, to any such Person.

Bundesverfassungsgericht

True and complete copies of the employment agreements of all Key Employees, as in effect as of the date hereof, including all amendments and side agreements, have been delivered to Purchaser prior to the date hereof. As of the date hereof, no notice of termination of any such employment agreement has been given, and no Key Employee has expressed the intention to terminate his or her employment with the Company. The Company and the Lessee are in full compliance with any such agreements, plans, schemes and practices. The Company and the Lessee are not bound by any restriction as to the closure, downsizing or other restructuring affecting the workforce of any of its businesses or portions thereof , except for any restrictions under mandatory Law.

Any adjustments of pensions. Any pension or other obligations of the Company or the Lessee under the Benefit Plans have been fully funded based on reasonable actuarial assumptions and applicable Laws or, to the extent not funded, have been fully reflected in the Financial Statements in accordance with applicable accounting principles. No taxes are due and payable on any Benefit Plans or on any benefits whether accrued or not thereunder.

All contributions to the pension security fund Pensionssicherungsverein or similar funds or institutions under the Laws of any jurisdiction other than Germany have been duly and timely paid. There are no pending or threatened claims against any Benefit Plan, the Company, the Lessee or the Hotel. To the Knowledge of the Sellers, no other party to any Material Agreement is in default or breach thereunder in any material respect, nor, to the Knowledge of the Sellers, does any condition exist that with notice or lapse of time or both would constitute a material default or breach by any such other party thereunder.

No approval, consent or waiver of any Person is needed in order that any Material Agreement continue in full force and effect following the consummation of this Agreement and the Transaction. All Insurance Policies have been issued by insurers which, to the Knowledge of the Sellers, are reputable and financially sound, provide coverage for the operations conducted by the Company of a scope and coverage consistent with customary practice in the industries in which the Company operate and are in full force and effect and no notice of cancellation or termination has been issued or received by the Company.

The Company has duly paid all premiums and is in compliance with all other obligations under such insurance policies including all obligations relating to any notifications and other actions required for the insurance coverage. No Insurance Policy shall terminate or may be terminated or modified by the insurer as a result of the consummation of the Transactions.

Coverage under all Insurance Policies, as in effect as of the Closing Date, shall continue in full force and effect under. All documents, certificates, written reports or written statements furnished by Sellers or on behalf of Sellers to Purchaser in connection with this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby are true, complete and accurate in all material respects. Purchaser hereby represents and warrants to Sellers as follows, as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date:.

In particular, no merger control clearance under German or EU law is required for the consummation of the Transaction. For a period of three years from the Closing Date, none of Sellers shall, directly or indirectly,. Sellers and the Company shall not engage in any such discussions or negotiations after the date hereof and shall, within 24 hours after receipt of any contact that relates or may relate to an Acquisition Proposal, provide all information they may have relating thereto to Purchaser.

As an exception to the foregoing, claims under the Warranties contained in Sections 5. The Sellers shall take no action to avoid receipt of the notices hereunder or the payment of legitimate claims of Purchaser. Veranlagungszeitraum under German tax Laws ending on or before the Closing Date or the portion up to the Closing Date of any Tax assessment period Veranlagungszeitraum beginning before and ending after the Closing Date. For the avoidance of doubt, it is expressly agreed that the aforementioned indemnity also covers tax risks resulting from the activities of legal entities which were contributed to, or the assets of which were taken over by, the Company.

Sellers shall prepare and file, or cause to be prepared and filed, all Tax Returns required to be filed by or on behalf of the Company for periods ending on or before the Closing Date i. Any out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred by either Party in connection with any such cooperation shall be borne by the respective other Party requesting such cooperation. Permits and requests of any government, court or authority, in each case relating to pollution, Hazardous Materials, protection of human health or safety or the environment including ambient air, surface water, groundwater or land surface with respect to, or otherwise relating to, any Environmental Matter, as in effect from time to time;.

To the Sellers:. Heinrich Scharpenberg. Holger Tonn. To Purchaser:. Paul Dallas Benkley. Jeffrey A. Clarksville, Maryland United States of America. This power of attorney can only be revoked if another person or corporation having its residency or seat in Germany is appointed as new process agent for the aforementioned Sellers in writing to Purchaser. On the basis of these requirements, the legislature has wide latitude when it comes to selecting a tax base and setting out the provisions for its assessment as long as they are generally suitable for reflecting the reasons for imposing the tax cf.

In doing so, the legislature is not obliged under the Constitution to select merely one standard for assessing the tax base cf. Depending on the type and variety of assets affected by the tax, an equality-based set-up of the basis for tax collection will often only be possible using several standards. When choosing a suitable standard, the legislature may also take into account practicability considerations, which become more important where the number of relevant valuation procedures increases and are thus able to justify typifications and generalisations to a larger extent; yet they must still respect the limits of such typifications and generalisations under constitutional law cf.

In order to guarantee an equal tax burden, the assessment system selected and designed in this manner must in any case ensure a realistic and thus equality-based assessment of the tax base overall as regards the relation of the assets to each other. For reasons inherent in the system, suspending a new general assessment of standard rateable values over a long period of time results in substantial unequal treatment due to unequal valuation results a. As the values drawn on are those of 1 January , the distorted values resulting from the overly long general assessment period are reflected in the individual valuation elements of both the rental value method and the capital value method Sachwertverfahren.

The aim of the valuation provisions is to determine standard rateable values that at least come close to the current market value of the land [ It is largely undisputed that the Valuation Act aims to obtain results that are as close as possible to the respective market value, also with regard to the standard rateable valuation of undeveloped and developed land. When reviewing equality-based taxation, the point of reference in this system is the current market value, against which the results of standard rateable valuation must be measured with respect to the nature and extent of possible divergences.

It is based on the notion that the circumstances determining the current market value of land are uniformly captured as realistically as possible at the time of the general assessment. As these circumstances are typically subject to change linked to market value in the years following a general assessment period, new general assessments are required at regular intervals not too far apart.

All other changes in value are disregarded until the next general assessment; the resulting unequal treatment is deliberately accepted. The longer a general assessment period extends beyond the six years originally provided for, the bigger the individual and the more extensive the overall divergence between the actual market value of land and its standard rateable value at the time of the general assessment.

In this Act, 1 January was laid down as the date of the general assessment for this cycle. After that general assessment, it suspended general assessments and has not resumed them since. Yet taxation was only based on the new standard rateable values from 1 January Art. The Act of 22 July amended Art.

To this day, such a law has not been enacted cf. Since then, the required general assessment has been continuously suspended and has increasingly led to distorted values regarding developed and undeveloped land. This inevitably results from the applicable valuation system see cc above. If standard rateable values lagged behind the rising market values evenly in all cases, it would not in itself result in unequal treatment relevant under constitutional law, since the level of standard rateable values in relation to each other, as compared to the current market value, would remain the same.

In this respect, the circumstances of the valuation of only one type of assets — in this case property — are different from wealth tax or inheritance tax. In the case of those tax types, the comparability of different assets, which must be assessed according to different standards, was concerned cf. However, this does not apply to the provisions for standard rateable valuation of property that have been referred in this case. Rather, the case at hand concerns the value of developed and undeveloped land.

The significant differences between standard rateable values that had to be expected and did occur — a fact that is undisputed — do not concern the differences between [land] value and other types of assets. They are a manifestation of value distortions within the same type of assets. There are no indications to suggest that the increasingly distorted values that necessarily result from dispensing with regular general assessments evenly reflect the development of current market values. This leads to serious unequal treatment when using either the rental value method aa or the capital value method bb.

According to their legislative set-up, both factors draw on the values at the date of the general assessment. Measured against the respective market values of the properties, this inevitably leads to distortions of standard rateable values, which typically become more severe with increasing duration. This provision can be directly applied only to land that has already been rented on 1 January , the date of the general assessment. The more time has passed since the date of the last general assessment, the fewer the buildings for which rent was paid in According to the findings of the Federal Finance Court, more than half of all homes in Germany in were built after 1 January [ Therefore, the rent that was customary at that time must usually be drawn on in those cases as well.

This is in line with the regulatory concept of standard rateable valuation, which is to take a constant rent and price level as the basis for determining values within an ongoing general assessment period — albeit limited to six years according to the original concept — in order to ensure equal taxation […].

Download PDF Caseys Story

This is generally done on the basis of rent indexes that were compiled by the finance administration for 1 January As the general assessment period has continued since , the rent levels given in the indexes for 1 January continue to apply, even though the values have changed in the meantime.

The rent indexes thus no longer provide a sufficiently objective basis for estimates. The more time has passed since the date of the last general assessment and the more new buildings have therefore been built in a different construction style and with features that differ from those built in , the more the application of the rent indexes leads to rent estimates that are not only outdated, but also do not reflect the actual value relations.

Changes outside or within buildings, for instance, can affect the market value see a below , but the value can also be impacted by external, structural circumstances see b below or obligations under rental law see c below , without being appropriately reflected by the standard rateable value. Depending on their type and extent in the specific case, such value changes do not merely entail an even or general undervaluation of land. Rather, they lead to increasingly severe value distortions and thus unequal treatment within the same type of asset.

The overly long general assessment period results in value distortions in standard rateable valuations of property, which lead to corresponding unequal treatment with regard to property taxation; the compatibility of such unequal treatment with Art. Neither the goal of avoiding excessive administrative burdens in general b nor typifications and generalisations c can sufficiently justify such unequal treatment. The argument that property tax was negligible, which has often been put forward, is just as unconvincing d as references to subsequent assessments or value adjustments that might compensate for value distortions e.

This inevitably follows from the fact that periodic reassessments have not been carried out for decades. Thus, significant value distortions do not only occur in isolated cases or in specific constellations; rather, they tend to occur almost universally and are increasingly significant the more the factual conditions and the related valuation of land and buildings develop in a way that can no longer reflect the valuation parameters related to the general assessment date of This is due to the extension of the period between general assessments, which sets aside the original concept of valuation.

While the legislature has substantial latitude in this respect bb , this does not include accepting a dysfunctional valuation system cc. However, it did not indicate any purpose for the differentiation which could be reviewed as to the question whether it can justify the unequal treatment. The relevant decision of the legislature to first postpone the general assessment, which was originally due six years after the general assessment of 1 January , and then to dispense with it permanently until today has obviously been motivated by the desire to avoid renewed administrative efforts, which turned out to be enormous during the general assessment of carried out in the s and 70s.

In doing so, it may also, to a significant degree, consider practicabilities that aim to simplify the assessment and levying of the tax. This particularly applies to mass taxation procedures. When setting up a system for determining the tax base, the legislature may give priority to practicabilities over the elements of a precise determination of the tax base and thus also accept substantial inaccuracies with regard to the valuation and determination in order to keep tax assessment and collection manageable regarding the broad range of value assessments for land in general, cf.

Dispensing with regular general assessments at recurrent six-year intervals is not the result of a deliberate decision to simplify administrative procedures on the part of the legislature, which aims to correct elements of standard rateable valuation to streamline the procedure while accepting a lower level of details in return.

Rather, by dispensing with them, the legislature removes from the system of standard rateable valuation a central element which is indispensable for obtaining valuations that are realistic in their relation to each other see IV 2 above. Simplifications cannot justify such a situation. If a legal provision generally violates the right to equality to a substantial degree, neither the highest level of administrative simplification nor the improved cost-benefit ratio between the tax collection effort and tax revenues can justify such a violation in the long run.

It is irrelevant whether the legislature, when it suspended general assessments, knowingly accepted this shortcoming or if it has just not realised it. The decisive factor is that the remaining arrangement is objectively dysfunctional. Accordingly, it does not matter whether doing without a new date for general assessments is to be interpreted as just an ongoing waiting period within the system of repeated general assessments or as an implied manifestation of a final dispensing with further general assessments altogether.

Even to follow the second interpretation, put forward by the Federal Government, would mean changing the notion of the system of periodically renewed standard rateable valuation to a system without any periodic general assessments, which would not justify the unequal treatment that has been established. According to this interpretation, the legislature would have created an imperfect valuation system from the outset that — as shown see 2 a, b above — will, in the long run, result in valuations that are less and less realistic in their relation to each other given that they are still based on the values of However, the legislature deciding on tax matters is allowed to typify for reasons of administrative simplification and, in this context, to disregard the particular circumstances of each case, if the resulting advantages are in adequate proportion to the inequality of tax burdens necessarily linked to typification, if its decisions are realistically based on typical cases and if there are valid and plausible reasons for it cf.

The current system of standard rateable valuation does not satisfy these requirements. When further general assessments are dispensed with, the system is not realistically based on typical cases. The value distortions are not limited to atypical exceptions or negligible corrections in marginal areas. Rather, they affect the core of valuation, they have become the general rule in large parts, and their number and extent increase as the general assessment period lengthens see 2 above. However, it is irrelevant in this case to what extent and in what areas these undervaluations occur because they are not the immediate cause of the value distortions of the taxable land, which are brought about by suspending periodical reassessments.

The unequal treatment that hence requires justification does not concern the general undervaluation of property, which does not entail any disadvantages regarding the property tax burden anyway. Rather, the property valuation entails internal shifts because value changes since the general assessment that lead to different deviations from the current market value as the target value cannot be reflected in the context of the existing valuation system.

When it comes to determining the tax base and the associated consequences for assessing the tax, it may be true that inconsistencies and unequal treatment in marginal areas are easier to justify and more acceptable with regard to a tax burden that is low in absolute terms than with regard to taxes with substantial burdening effects. However, the requirement of equal treatment in respect of taxes under Art. It is not necessary to decide conclusively to what extent such arguments of negligibility are acceptable under constitutional law at all.

In any event, a negligible tax burden cannot justify substantial and far-reaching unequal treatment as in the case of the value distortions at the core of tax collection established in this case. When reviewing violations of the right to equality under constitutional law in the context of standard rateable valuation, it is therefore, in principle, also irrelevant that standard rateable values have considerably lost significance in general as they are now largely limited to property tax law.

Furthermore, property tax is, also in substance, not a tax of negligible dimensions. Total revenue from property tax, which has continuously increased over the last few years, from EUR 12 billion to just under EUR 14 billion most recently, and its considerable significance for the municipalities contradict such a presumption. Due to the level of municipal leverage factors common today, property tax is not insignificant for taxpayers, not least because it is payable for an indefinite period.

In addition, it can be passed on to tenants according to the current legal situation so that the costs are largely incurred by persons who are not liable for property tax themselves. GrStG ; municipalities have corresponding influence based on their right to determine the leverage factor of property tax Art. Both measures co-determine the overall level of property tax. Yet due to their linear and global approach, they cannot, from the outset, offset or otherwise compensate for the diverging value distortions that are not differentiated according to specific types of property.

To the extent reviewed here see B IV 2 above and C below , the provisions on standard rateable valuation of property according to the First Section of the Second Part of the Valuation Act have violated Art. The constitutional complaints see C below are directed against standard rateable valuations of developed land carried out according to the capital value method for 1 January and 1 January The examples of evident value distortions set out above see B IV 2b are not limited to the most recent decade, but demonstrate structural distortions of standard rateable values see 2 a above , which inevitably began relatively soon after the six-year cycle originally provided for had been completed.

When the period between general assessments lengthens, the number and extent of value distortions increase because the time passed since the date of the general assessment drawn upon becomes longer and the significance of factors relevant for determining the values fades and they become less realistic. The change of actual circumstances requires increasingly more value adjustments and subsequent assessments that lead to substantial value distortions due to the diverging developments of actual circumstances and outdated factors determining the values in that respect see B IV 2 above.

At least in , and thus almost 40 years after the last general assessment date and more than 30 years after the last general assessment had been carried out, the limit of what is acceptable in terms of unequal treatment was exceeded. At the start of , such a period had long expired in any case. It was foreseeable from the outset that value distortions would arise for structural reasons when the principle of periodic reassessments not too far apart was dispensed with.

Product details

The constitutional complaints are admissible and well-founded. The notices of standard rateable values Einheitswertbescheide challenged in the initial proceedings preceding the constitutional complaints are based on a valuation method that has not been compatible with Art. The provisions on standard rateable valuation of developed land by means of the rental value method referred [for judicial review] by the Federal Finance Court are incompatible with Art. These provisions also violate Art. The dispensing with new general assessments and the resulting adherence to the general assessment date of 1 January that has continued for decades are the primary cause of the challenged value distortions.