Anyone who transfers real estate instead of cash as part of the equalisation of accrued gains can quickly trigger taxation under Section 23 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). In its judgment of 18 June 2026 (8 K 901/23 E), the Münster Fiscal Court recognised a potential way to avoid this tax liability for the first time, while also demonstrating how easily the opportunity can be missed. A prenuptial or postnuptial agreement can provide a solution, whereas a divorce settlement agreement cannot.

Structurally a two-family house, but intended as a home for a single family – is that enough to trigger the equal-sharing principle under Section 656c BGB? In its judgment of 16 July 2026 (case no. I ZR 111/25), the Federal Court of Justice held: yes, but only if the buyer discloses their intended use no later than upon conclusion of the agency agreement. Anyone who waits until the viewing pays the full commission.

When someone purchases real estate, they generally buy what they see: a completed building with a known condition, existing lease agreements, and predictable income. In practice, however, another type of transaction has become established in which the closing of the purchase is deliberately postponed to a later date—the so-called forward deal.

Anyone selling real estate within the family often wishes to make the transaction easier to complete. A common solution is for the purchase price not to be paid in one lump sum, but in instalments over several years – without interest.

KG Berlin, Judgment of 5 February 2026 – 10 U 52/24

The Berlin Higher Regional Court (Kammergericht) has invalidated a contractual structure that has long been widely used in notarised real estate transactions. Where a tenant exercises a statutory right of first refusal, a so-called constitutive brokerage clause cannot be used to impose the full brokerage commission on the tenant if the broker has agreed to act without remuneration vis-à-vis the seller.

BGH, Urteil vom 23. Januar 2026 – V ZR 91/25

The Federal Court of Justice has tightened its stance: Powers of attorney authorizing amendments to the declaration of division will only be considered valid going forward if specific and compelling reasons are expressly stated. General or blanket clauses are no longer sufficient.