For inheritance and gift tax purposes, condominium units are valued in accordance with § 182 para. 2 no. 1 BewG generally using the sales comparison approach. In this context, § 183 para. 1 sentence 2 BewG grants the comparative prices communicated by the expert committee (Gutachterausschuss) a statutorily mandated position of priority. How far this priority extends and whether taxpayers can override it with a recently achieved purchase price was clarified by the BFH in its ruling of 24 August 2022 (Case No. II R 14/20) .

The case

A condominium unit was to be valued in the context of a gift. The tax office relied on the comparative prices provided by the expert committee (Gutachterausschuss) and used them to determine the property value to be assessed. The taxpayer objected that a recently achieved purchase price – which was significantly below the assessed value – should be recognized as evidence of a lower fair market value.

The decision

The BFH confirmed the priority of the expert committee's comparative prices and held that when applying the sales comparison approach, the comparative prices communicated by the expert committee (Gutachterausschuss) are to be given priority and must be used. The tax office is entitled to rely on these prices without conducting its own further review.

A recently achieved purchase price can, in principle, serve as evidence of a lower fair market value pursuant to Section 198 of the German Valuation Act (BewG) – but only if the circumstances relevant to the value have remained unchanged between the purchase date and the valuation date remained unchanged. If there has been a relevant market change between the valuation date and the purchase price date, this means of evidence is no longer available.

In substance, this ruling paves the way for the even more explicit landmark decision II R 6/23 of 11 March 2026 , in which the BFH expressly grounded the limited judicial review of committee prices on constitutional law considerations.

What this means for donors and recipients

The decision makes clear that a mere reference to a purchase price – even if achieved recently – does not automatically correct the tax assessment. What is required is proof that the value-determining factors remained stable between the valuation date and the purchase date. If, for example, renovations were carried out during this period, the market environment changed, or the use of the property was modified, comparability can no longer be established.

Anyone who fundamentally considers the expert committee (Gutachterausschuss) value to be incorrect must take the route of Section 198 of the German Valuation Act (BewG) : by submitting a valuer's appraisal report that methodically and robustly captures all value-influencing characteristics. Such an appraisal report competes with the committee's value – not the mere purchase price alone.

Conclusion

BFH II R 14/20 establishes a clear framework for the sales comparison approach: the expert committee (Gutachterausschuss) enjoys statutorily anchored priority. Anyone wishing to challenge it needs either a strictly comparable, recently achieved purchase price or – the more reliable route – a complete valuer's appraisal report in accordance with Section 198 of the German Valuation Act (BewG). The subsequent decision II R 6/23 has further tightened this framework.