Imputed rental value: Why tenants and owners earn the same!

Imputed rental value: Why tenants and owners earn the same!

In the current debate about the imputed rental value, the focus is on the ideas of tenants and owners. An exemplary example is the meeting between the tenant Müller and the owner Egli. Both have assets of one million francs each, but significant differences arise due to different forms of investment. While Müller pays 30,000 francs a month in rent, Egli has fully financed his property, meaning he has no capital costs. Egli's assets are fully invested in the property.

Müller, on the other hand, invested her assets in securities that generate an annual income of 30,000 francs, for example through dividends. This income is taxable, which is important in the context of the current discussion about imputed rental value. The imputed rental value is the fictitious amount that owners must use when calculating their tax burden. As a result, the tax burdens differ significantly between tenants and owners.

Differences in taxation

Tax conditions vary for renters and owners. Income from real estate ownership, such as that generated by Egli, counts as income from rental and leasing and is subject to different tax regulations than Müller's capital income. This income is not easy to handle like capital income from securities. While Müller has to pay tax on income from securities, rental income is only subject to income tax if it exceeds a certain amount.

Like the page dasfinanzen.de explains, rental income is subject to contributions, but does not have to be taxed under certain circumstances, especially if it is less than 256 euros per year. However, if the amounts exceed this, the rental income must be credited to the property owners for tax purposes. In addition, landlords have to report their rental income to the tax office, which also forces workers and employees to discuss how much imputed rental value should be included in the tax return.

Tax aspects and consequences

The tax regulations are of great importance for those involved. Capital gains are subject to withholding tax, which is currently 25%, plus any solidarity surcharges and church taxes. There is no special allowance for rental income, but a basic allowance of 10,908 euros is granted. While Müller has to pay taxes on the income from securities, the situation is different for owners.

A particularly serious issue is the legal consequences of not disclosing rental income. There is a risk of both fines and prison sentences, depending on the amount of taxes evaded. This shows how important it is to correctly treat income from rental and leasing. The tax office has access to information about property purchases and can access tenants' tax returns, increasing transparency in this area.

In summary, the situation of tenant Müller and owner Egli not only highlights the differences in taxation, but also the fundamental questions that arise with regard to the imputed rental value and the tax regulations. The upcoming vote requires a comprehensive discussion of these economic and legal aspects.