Table of contents:

Obligation to uniform smoke detectors
Obligation to uniform smoke detectors

Video: Obligation to uniform smoke detectors

Отличия серверных жестких дисков от десктопных
Video: Smoke Detectors 101 | Consumer Reports 2023, February
Anonim

Can 11 students live together in a shared apartment? When are you obliged to have a uniform smoke detector in an apartment building? These judgments provide answers.

Uniform smoke detectors

The owners' meeting may take a corresponding decision

Even if individual apartment owners have already bought smoke detectors themselves, according to information provided by the law and tax information service of the LBS, the community can oblige them to participate in a uniform system.

(Munich District Court, file number 482 C 13922/16)

The verdict in detail

The case: The owner of a three-room apartment that was not being used by him at the time was not at all enthusiastic about a decision by WEG. As a result, a specialist company was commissioned with the procurement, maintenance and testing of the smoke detectors and the costs should be shared among the members of the community. The person concerned referred to the fact that he had already installed smoke detectors. His interests should have been taken into account.

The verdict: The owner's special property rights had not been violated at all, the local court decided, because the smoke detectors were in joint ownership. Because of this, the WEG could pull the matter itself, even if this entailed certain disadvantages for one of its members. Uniformity in this area leads to greater security for the entire property and is therefore not objectionable.

Water march

A connection is subject to a reduced tax rate

If a property receives a domestic water connection, this service as a “delivery of water” is subject to a reduced tax rate of seven percent. According to information provided by the Law and Tax Information Service of the LBS, this applies even if the service is not provided by the responsible water supply company.

(Federal Fiscal Court, file number XI R 17/17)

The verdict in detail

The case: A civil engineering company had been commissioned by the local special-purpose association to set up a drinking water connection. The company billed the reduced tax rate to the client, which the tax authorities did not accept. The full VAT rate must apply here, the tax authorities decided. The reduction is only possible if the service is provided by the same company that is responsible for the supply of the water itself.

The verdict: In the last instance, the BFH judges found that the distinction made by the tax office was not relevant here. If the water supplier had commissioned a third party to carry out the work, then this should be assessed for tax purposes as if the supplier himself had performed the service. The Finanzgericht had previously held this opinion.

A flat share with eleven students

This is permitted even in a purely residential area

The owner of a single-family home didn't like it at all that a flat-sharing community had moved into his neighborhood, which consisted of eleven people (all students). He turned to the building inspectorate and called for action to be taken against what he considered illegal property use. This is not compatible with a purely residential area because it is equivalent to an accommodation company. After the agency took no action, the neighbor sued the administrative court. However, according to the information service law and taxes of the LBS, he was also unsuccessful here. The ruling said that the use was compatible with the area, because the main purpose of a residential area - living - was also fulfilled by the students. The members of the WG did not change constantly, which is why one cannot speak of a similarity to an accommodation establishment.

(Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate, file number 8 A 10680/16)

Popular by topic