Home inspections yield €4.5 million in ‘under-declared’ home values

As the president of the Notarial Council i can confirm that Notaries have been clamouring for changes in the system for quite a while, since it creates a host of problems, not least amongst which where foreigners are involved. However i must correct the impression given by the writer in that Notaries are involved and collude with buyers and vendors to underdeclare values. If the parties tell you that a Price is X, the Notary will write down that X is the price in the promise of sale agreement. Any underhand agreements between the parties are not done by the Notary. Sometimes buyers also split up the price of the property into furniture and building and this can be perceived as under declaration when such isnot the case, but this is a legitimate thing to do. It is my experience that nowadys, 90-95% of all promises of sale reflect the truw value of the property being sold and i believe that architects who are not involved in the transaction can come up with a true value. What is value? This is partly subjective and partly objective. I think that once the Central Registry Act is promulgated we should start looking at a system of tax per square metre of property sold. This will avoid conflicts and assessments.

Some may under-declare their property, but why should a government architect visit the property more than 6 months after the person had bought it and renovated it and estimates the property without taking into account what it was like before being renovated? Why should the architect not visit within one month so that the person buying the property can repair and refurbish it? And why should I be told how much I should sell my property by the Government? Why should the buyer be penalized when he really has bought the property at the stated price but it is valued more by the government architect? Is it not true that different architects give different values to the same property? I know of a case where the property was evaluated by an architect who was appointed as a court expert due to certain circumstances which need not be elaborated and the court accepted his estimate. The property was sold at the estimated price and after more than six months when the property had been refurbished the government architect visited and evaluated the property at a higher price which resulted in the person who had bought the property being demanded to pay an additional tax and fine. This is sheer robbery by the government and nothing else. Robbery by those elected supposedly to protect the citizens from thieves and robbers. As had been aptly said Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians? Apart from this, ti also implies that the partied intended and did indeed defraud the government. It also implies that the Notary Public who did the contract was collaborating with the partied to defraud the government. What does the Notarial Council have to say about this?