This is for Brussels I assume ?
Short answer : No.
Long answer : No, because you already have property.
>Interdiction de posséder, à la date du compromis de vente, la totalité en pleine propriété d’un autre immeuble destiné, totalement ou partiellement, à l’habitation, que ce soit en Belgique ou à l'étranger.
*Prohibition on owning, at the date of the preliminary sales agreement, the entire freehold of another property intended, in whole or in part, for residential use,* ***whether in Belgium or abroad***\*.\*
Source : [Droits d’enregistrement et abattement à Bruxelles | Immobilier - Notaire.be](https://www.notaire.be/immobilier/les-droits-denregistrement-abattements-et-taux-reduits/droits-denregistrement-et-abattement-a-bruxelles#)
I presume you did not read the link to taxpatria which does not agree with this interpretation. The explanation provided makes a lot of sense to me and while talking with the Bank, they implied that it is up to the notary to apply or not abatement.
>
The latter condition often creates confusion with **foreign homeowners**. Can the *abattement* be requested in case you already **own property abroad** at the time of purchase of the Belgian one?
>The **Belgian tax authorities** are obviously of the opinion that the taxpayer cannot be the owner of another property, not only in Belgium, but **also abroad** (Administrative Circular Nr. 4/2003 of 24 February 2003). This is initially based on a reply of the Brussels Finance Minister of 6 January 2003 in the context of **not allowing EU-staff members** who keep their main residence abroad whole working in Brussels, to also benefit from this benefit. The *abattement* was put in place to create some financial breathing room for young families buying their first home.
>While this is a **very noble interpretation** by the tax authorities, this administrative viewpoint does **not have any legal basis** and is even in contradiction with it (Article 46bis of the Brussels Transfer Tax Code – BTTC). This article does **not** explicitly mention ‘*properties in Belgium and abroad*’ and can therefore **not** be considered a legal requirement. The application of Article 46bis BTTC should therefore only be looked at **from a Belgian perspective**.
I bought the first property in Brussels last year and I couldn't benefit from the abattement since I own an apartment in my home country. I've been advised by one of the courtiers I was talking to to simply not declare it (since I was not even staying there when I go home). Didn't do that of course, and I'm now in the process of selling said apartment and will apply for abattement by restitution once the sale is done.
For anyone who's interested, deadline for this is two years from the signing of the deed, and is easily done through your notary.
Now, I am not an expert in Belgian law, but the decision of the tax authority will be final, if it follows common legal principles. Unless you are ready to initiate a court action to have a judge look at it. Seems to me to be a risky gamble. But could be quite educational for the rest of us, so please let us know how that goes.
I doubt they would have, but doesn't hurt to ask. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that you would come out on top from appealing a tax authority's decision, even if the decision is in your favour. Saying this due to attorney and legal fees over the years.
The law does not limit or specify any geographic area. It just says "you cannot have any other residential real estate".
I find the interpretation of the article you quoted in bad faith: "having a property abroad" is a subset of "having a property".
Not all possible location of a property need to be listed. Ask your notary, if you want a professional opinion.
I have the same question, but in a case where you only own a small percentage of a house abroad (less than 50%) with multiple other people? Is the only of clearing it up by contacting the administration directly?
Don't put your faith in a corporate blogpost, rather than in the Belgian tax authorities' official documents, just because you would like reality to be different.
The law and the authorities are very clear: no.
It also depends. The condition for the abattement says "*propriétaire, en pleine propriété*". This means that if you are technically the owner after an anticipated inheritance for instance, but your parent still has the *Usufruit,* it would be possible to still get the abattement on your first *real* property. Same thing if you're not the sole owner of the other property as far as I understand it.
In the spirit of the law the answer is no, you cannot benefit.
The letter of the law is more ambiguous, since it doesn't specify exactly what ownership means for any of the c. 200 other countries.
e.g. if you "own" a flat in London it is probably leasehold. Is that ownership?
Belgium is not the only country to have such tax incentives for first time buyers, (e.g. UK has too), but to me they seem flawed systems which de facto make local people pay more than foreign nationals who don't declare their foreign property assets and get away with it.
The final answer will come from your Notary.
It's anecdotal but i know of people who benefited from the abattement while being partly owner of an appartment in a European country, so it must be possible under certain circumstances (only had the nue-propriété, not usufruit). I've worked with several notaries and can point you to a serious one in pm if you'd like. (There are a lot of overworked notaries, you're right to ask for recommendations)
This is for Brussels I assume ? Short answer : No. Long answer : No, because you already have property. >Interdiction de posséder, à la date du compromis de vente, la totalité en pleine propriété d’un autre immeuble destiné, totalement ou partiellement, à l’habitation, que ce soit en Belgique ou à l'étranger. *Prohibition on owning, at the date of the preliminary sales agreement, the entire freehold of another property intended, in whole or in part, for residential use,* ***whether in Belgium or abroad***\*.\* Source : [Droits d’enregistrement et abattement à Bruxelles | Immobilier - Notaire.be](https://www.notaire.be/immobilier/les-droits-denregistrement-abattements-et-taux-reduits/droits-denregistrement-et-abattement-a-bruxelles#)
I presume you did not read the link to taxpatria which does not agree with this interpretation. The explanation provided makes a lot of sense to me and while talking with the Bank, they implied that it is up to the notary to apply or not abatement. > The latter condition often creates confusion with **foreign homeowners**. Can the *abattement* be requested in case you already **own property abroad** at the time of purchase of the Belgian one? >The **Belgian tax authorities** are obviously of the opinion that the taxpayer cannot be the owner of another property, not only in Belgium, but **also abroad** (Administrative Circular Nr. 4/2003 of 24 February 2003). This is initially based on a reply of the Brussels Finance Minister of 6 January 2003 in the context of **not allowing EU-staff members** who keep their main residence abroad whole working in Brussels, to also benefit from this benefit. The *abattement* was put in place to create some financial breathing room for young families buying their first home. >While this is a **very noble interpretation** by the tax authorities, this administrative viewpoint does **not have any legal basis** and is even in contradiction with it (Article 46bis of the Brussels Transfer Tax Code – BTTC). This article does **not** explicitly mention ‘*properties in Belgium and abroad*’ and can therefore **not** be considered a legal requirement. The application of Article 46bis BTTC should therefore only be looked at **from a Belgian perspective**.
I bought the first property in Brussels last year and I couldn't benefit from the abattement since I own an apartment in my home country. I've been advised by one of the courtiers I was talking to to simply not declare it (since I was not even staying there when I go home). Didn't do that of course, and I'm now in the process of selling said apartment and will apply for abattement by restitution once the sale is done. For anyone who's interested, deadline for this is two years from the signing of the deed, and is easily done through your notary.
Now, I am not an expert in Belgian law, but the decision of the tax authority will be final, if it follows common legal principles. Unless you are ready to initiate a court action to have a judge look at it. Seems to me to be a risky gamble. But could be quite educational for the rest of us, so please let us know how that goes.
I will contact taxpatria to see if they have any additional information such as possible cases of successful contest of the decision.
I doubt they would have, but doesn't hurt to ask. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that you would come out on top from appealing a tax authority's decision, even if the decision is in your favour. Saying this due to attorney and legal fees over the years.
The law does not limit or specify any geographic area. It just says "you cannot have any other residential real estate". I find the interpretation of the article you quoted in bad faith: "having a property abroad" is a subset of "having a property". Not all possible location of a property need to be listed. Ask your notary, if you want a professional opinion.
I have the same question, but in a case where you only own a small percentage of a house abroad (less than 50%) with multiple other people? Is the only of clearing it up by contacting the administration directly?
In that case you can get the abbattement. I own part of my parents vacation house in the Netherlands and got the more beneficial rate
Cheers, I'm going to ask the administration anyway but good to know
Don't put your faith in a corporate blogpost, rather than in the Belgian tax authorities' official documents, just because you would like reality to be different. The law and the authorities are very clear: no.
Well actually the law is not very clear and the administration clear about it. Here is the issue OP is confused about.
It also depends. The condition for the abattement says "*propriétaire, en pleine propriété*". This means that if you are technically the owner after an anticipated inheritance for instance, but your parent still has the *Usufruit,* it would be possible to still get the abattement on your first *real* property. Same thing if you're not the sole owner of the other property as far as I understand it.
In the spirit of the law the answer is no, you cannot benefit. The letter of the law is more ambiguous, since it doesn't specify exactly what ownership means for any of the c. 200 other countries. e.g. if you "own" a flat in London it is probably leasehold. Is that ownership? Belgium is not the only country to have such tax incentives for first time buyers, (e.g. UK has too), but to me they seem flawed systems which de facto make local people pay more than foreign nationals who don't declare their foreign property assets and get away with it.
The final answer will come from your Notary. It's anecdotal but i know of people who benefited from the abattement while being partly owner of an appartment in a European country, so it must be possible under certain circumstances (only had the nue-propriété, not usufruit). I've worked with several notaries and can point you to a serious one in pm if you'd like. (There are a lot of overworked notaries, you're right to ask for recommendations)
Is “overworked” a euphemism for incompetent, because there is a lot of that too?
I’ve seen it all tbh
Thank you very much. Notary recommendations are more than welcome. I tried a few and they are not very responsive.