This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice, nor a valuation in an individual case. Despite careful research, we assume no liability for accuracy, completeness, and timeliness. For specific questions, please consult a lawyer or tax advisor. Older content may be outdated due to changes in legislation or case law.
For owners of let properties, this means: lower formal hurdles – and a window of opportunity that should be used.
At a glance
- The BMF letter dated 22.02,2023 was, with effect from 01.12,2025 fully repealed (BMF letter dated 01.12,2025 – IV C 3 – S 2196/00040/006/008). No follow-up letter has been announced.
- The planned tightening – recognition only of publicly appointed and sworn (öbuv) valuers (Section 11c (1a) EStDV-E (draft)) – was published on 08.11,2025 without replacement removed from the draft regulation.
- The Bundesrat approved the tightening on 19.12,2025 not included in the “Seventh Ordinance Amending Tax Ordinances” – so it is now definitively off the table.
- Once again, the decisive factors are the wording of the law (Section 7 (4) sentence 2 EStG) and the case law of the highest courts. Currently, there are no binding formal administrative requirements.
- A specific qualification (publicly appointed and sworn status or DIN EN ISO/IEC 17024) is no longer strictly required; what matters solely is the professional quality and traceability of the appraisal report.
What is a remaining useful life report about?
If a building is used to generate income – for example, through rental – the building depreciation (AfA) is generally calculated based on statutorily standardized useful lives and, accordingly, fixed percentage rates:
| Depreciation rate | standardized useful life | Completion |
|---|---|---|
| 3.0% p.a. | 33 years | after 31.12,2022 |
| 2.0% p.a. | 50 years | after 31.12,1924 and before 01.01,2023 |
| 2.5% p.a. | 40 years | before 01.01,1925 |
Section 7 (4) sentence 2 EStG opens up, however, the possibility of using, instead of the standardized shorter actual useful life to be applied – provided this is proven. This proof is precisely what the useful life or remaining useful life report (RUL report) provides. A shorter remaining useful life directly results in a higher annual depreciation amount and thus a lower tax burden for rented properties.
For tax purposes, this is explicitly not about the "value" of the property, but about its expected remaining usability – considered from technical, economic, and legal perspectives.
The foundation: BFH case law
Today's owner-friendly legal situation is essentially the result of Supreme Court case law:
- BFH, judgment of 28.07,2021 – IX R 25/19 (BFH/NV 2022, 108): Taxpayers who invoke a shorter actual useful life can any method of presentation that appears suitable in the individual case for the required evidence – provided it allows conclusions to be drawn on the relevant determinants (technical wear and tear, economic obsolescence, legal restrictions on use). A specific building fabric survey is therefore not a prerequisite.
- BFH, judgment of 23.01,2024 – IX R 14/23 (BFH/NV 2024, 823): Confirmation of this line of reasoning. A method oriented towards the economic useful life and based on the ImmoWertV must also be recognized. Insofar as the tax authorities imposed further-reaching requirements, the BFH explicitly held this to be non-compliant with the law.
- Fiscal court line of case law: Several fiscal court (FG) rulings confirm that open-ended evidence is permitted. The FG Münster (Judgment of 02.04,2025 – 14 K 654/23) even ruled that a suitable appraisal report can also be prepared by a valuer who not is accredited under DIN EN ISO/IEC 17024.
Repeal of the BMF letter dated 22.02,2023
Regarding the BFH ruling of 2021 the tax administration had, with the BMF letter dated 22.02,2023 (IV C 3 – S 2196/22/10006:005, BStBl 2023 I p. 332) responded – with at times high formal hurdles. According to its paragraph 24, for example, the "mere adoption" of a remaining useful life from a market value appraisal was not considered proof, nor was sole reliance on the model approaches of the ImmoWertV.
With Circular dated 01.12,2025 (IV C 3 – S 2196/00040/006/008), the BMF has, in agreement with the supreme tax authorities of the federal states, completely repealed this application decree. The special requirements set out therein therefore no longer apply. From now on, the sole decisive factors are once again the wording of the law of Section 7 (4) sentence 2 EStG and BFH case law. The BMF has not announced a new, replacing circular.
The planned requirement for publicly appointed and sworn valuers – and why it failed
At the same time, a significant tightening threatened via the regulatory route. The Draft bill for the "Seventh Ordinance Amending Tax Ordinances"(BMF, early August 2025) envisaged a new Section 11c (1a) EStDV proposed: Proof of a shorter actual useful life should in future only by means of an appraisal report prepared after a personal on-site inspection by a publicly appointed and sworn valuer (Sections 36, 36aGewO) should be possible. A comparable tightening was planned for the purchase price allocation (Section 9b EStDV-E (draft)) planned.
There was considerable criticism of the draft – including from the Immobilienverband Deutschland (IVD). Objections raised included, in particular, the contradiction to the established BFH case law, the de facto exclusion of qualified valuers certified in accordance with DIN EN ISO/IEC 17024, as well as constitutional and European law concerns (freedom to exercise a profession, freedom to provide services in the internal market).
The consequence: already the Government draft (cabinet resolution of 05.11,2025) no longer contained the provision; the BMF deleted it on 08.11,2025 without replacement. On 19.12,2025 the Bundesrat approved the government's draft – and not the more far-reaching committee recommendation. As a result, § 11c para. 1a EStDV was not implemented; the planned restriction on publicly appointed and sworn valuers (öbuv) has been definitively taken off the table.
What does this mean for practice?
For owners and investors, the situation is as favorable as it has been in a long time:
- Lower formal hurdles and a broader range of permissible verification methods.
- Both publicly appointed and sworn valuers as well as valuers certified according to DIN EN ISO/IEC 17024 are recognized – and, according to fiscal court case law, even beyond that.
- A method oriented on the ImmoWertV and derived by an expert is generally suitable.
Quality still decides
The revocation of the BMF letter lowers the formal, not the professional requirements. The fiscal courts (including FG Münster and FG München, 2025) have criticized purely model-based ImmoWertV derivations without an on-site inspection of the property – without, however, requiring appointment as a publicly appointed and sworn valuer. A robust appraisal report therefore requires a clear reference to the property, an inspection, a traceable methodology, and explicit identification of the relevant determinants.
Making use of the time window
Future regulation is not ruled out – topics that are not implemented in a draft tend, based on experience, to return in a modified form. What is decisive is not the date the appraisal report was commissioned, but the Finality of the tax assessment notice. A still-pending procedure may end up falling under a later, stricter legal framework. Anyone wishing to take advantage of the current legal situation should therefore act promptly.
How to recognize a robust RUL report
- Clear appraisal purpose: The appraisal report expressly demonstrates the shorter actual useful life Section 7 (4) sentence 2 EStG applies – not the market value.
- First-hand knowledge of the property: Personal on-site inspection with photo documentation as well as recording of the construction description, modernization status, damage pattern and state of maintenance.
- Conclusive, recognized methodology: The derivation is presented transparently (e.g. oriented on the ImmoWertV) and is based on an independent expert assessment rather than mere adoption of a model.
- Specific designation of the determinants: Technical wear and tear, economic depreciation and legal restrictions on use are substantiated on a property-specific basis – including any subsequent use.
- Clean temporal delineation: Total useful life and remaining useful life are clearly separated and each related to a specific valuation date.
- Traceability and verifiability: What matters is not the valuer's status, but that the method, assumptions and result are conclusive and verifiable for the tax office.
- Qualification of the valuer: Since the repeal of the BMF letter, no longer a mandatory requirement – an öbuv appointment or certification according to DIN EN ISO/IEC 17024 is no longer required.
Conclusion
With the repeal of the BMF circular dated 22.02,2023 and the failure of the öbuv requirement (publicly appointed and sworn valuer requirement), the legal situation for remaining useful life reports has eased considerably as of the end of 2025. Statute and BFH case law are once again authoritative; there are currently no binding formal administrative requirements. The decisive factor today is no longer the professional title, but the technical quality, traceability and verifiability of the appraisal report – ideally documented through certification and a well-founded property inspection.
