Table of contents:
- Controversial terrace renovation: owner has to pay
- Property owner argues with tax authorities over management commission
- "Unobstructable" doesn't count
There is constant argument: about a parking space, the renovation of the patio, the ability to build on plots of land. The LBS information service law & taxes presents current judgments of German courts.
If someone can use certain non-contractually guaranteed areas for parking his car for a longer period of time, this does not give rise to an “eternity right”. According to information provided by the Law and Tax Information Service of the LBS, the owner can still insist on ending this situation after a long period of time (Frankfurt District Court, 33 C 767/17).
The case: In front of a house there were niches next to a fire brigade entrance, in which a car could be accommodated. A tenant parked his cars in it, even put up signs that declared the spaces as used by him. But then the owner prohibited this practice in several letters. Ultimately, he asked the tenant not to leave his cars there. The person concerned referred to the long-term parking in these niches in the past. There have never been any complaints about this.
The judgment: "Even a long-term tolerance of the free actual use" should not be considered as an irrevocable permit, the Frankfurt / Main district court ruled. Basically, a rental agreement is based on the fact that living / usable space is provided for a fee. Therefore, the tenant should not have expected that he could invoke his “special arrangement”, which was not contractually fixed.
Controversial terrace renovation: owner has to pay
If certain systems, facilities and parts of buildings are intended for exclusive use by an owner through the declaration of division by a homeowners' association (WEG), then this has consequences. The community can oblige an owner to whom a roof terrace has been assigned to repair both those parts of the terrace that are special and jointly owned. According to information provided by the Law and Tax Information Service of the LBS, it was decided by the highest judge (Federal Court of Justice, file number V ZR 163/17).
The case: It was a matter of dispute within a community of apartment owners - in particular two roof terraces that were only assigned to one member by declaration of division. Over time, the structural parts were damaged. The WEG decided to commission a specialist company with the repair and to invoice the costs to the special owner. The victim resisted, because his terrace also formed the roof of the apartment below. The WEG as a whole must therefore pay for it.
The verdict: In the instance, the district court stood on the side of the community, the district court on the side of the special owner. In the end, the Federal Court of Justice found that the WEG was allowed to burden the roof terrace user with the costs. The declaration of division was clearly formulated and the scope for design was not exceeded. If you check who has the right to access the terrace, that is the sole owner - a clear indication in this case.
If a property owner receives one-time compensation for allowing an energy supplier to overvoltage his property with a high-voltage line, then it is not taxable income, it was decided.
Photo: marcus_hofmann / Fotolia
Property owner argues with tax authorities over management commission
If a property owner receives one-off compensation for allowing an energy supplier to overvoltage his property with a high-voltage line, then this is not taxable income. According to information provided by the Law and Tax Information Service of the LBS, it decided the highest judicial decisions (Federal Finance Court, file number IX R 31/16).
The case: The owner of a property he lived in himself allowed a power line to be laid directly above his property. For this he received almost 18, 000 euros in compensation. The tax office wanted to tax this amount as so-called income from other services. The property owner resisted. He pointed out that the management significantly reduced the value of his property - in a way that the payment would not compensate for. He himself had hardly been able to do anything about the relocation of the electricity terrace, because otherwise he could have been expropriated.
The verdict: The taxpayer had not - as with a normal rental and leasing - allowed a temporary use of his property, the BGH judges found. It is a real charge and thus the complete abandonment of an ownership component. There was also no income from other services, which is why the tax liability actually does not apply here.
"Unobstructable" doesn't count
A local resident defended himself against a development plan of his municipality, which in its immediate vicinity identified areas for care facilities as well as a general residential area. He pointed out that the municipalities legally responsible before incorporation in the meantime had always emphasized the visual relationships to the surrounding nature and the avoidance of an impairment of the landscape in their development plan. After he was unable to assert himself, the resident filed a standard control application against the new development plan.
However, according to the information service law and taxes of the LBS that did not help him, because the responsible higher administrative court did not recognize any interests worthy of protection. With the exception of the restricted view, the new buildings had "no further significant effects" on the plaintiff's property. The interest in maintaining an unobstructed view is not an aspect that is significant for the consideration. Every property owner must expect that his prospect will be affected by construction activities on the neighboring property. There is also no exceptional case with a relevant urban planning reference (Saxon Higher Administrative Court, file number 1 C 13/17).