Whether the tax office accepts an appraisal for a reduced remaining useful life comes down to one thing: does it meet the requirements of the tax authorities? This overview follows the official checklist (nach Jardin) so you can test an appraisal point by point. Mark each item as plausible or not plausible, and the summary shows you where the appraisal still has gaps.
Mark each item as plausible or not plausible. The running summary shows you exactly where your appraisal still has gaps.
Chapter 1
The report was signed.
The author has demonstrated their expertise in the field of real estate valuation through a public appointment, certification, or similar qualification.
The purpose of the valuation was stated and, with regard to the market value, reference was made to Section 194 of the German Federal Building Code (BauGB).
There are no reasons to doubt its objectivity.
The report was written independently by the expert.
The report was prepared in a systematically structured and comprehensible manner.
The expert personally inspected the property.
The relevant property (including all associated land and buildings) was appraised.
The property was valued as of the applicable valuation date / quality assessment date. (Minor deviations may only be considered the applicable valuation date in individual cases.)
Information about the people who contributed to the report has been provided.
The client has been named.
Chapter 2
The land register was reviewed and assessed in a comprehensible manner (information on the owner, rights and encumbrances from Section II).
The cadastre was reviewed and assessed in a comprehensible manner (e.g. with regard to the complete consideration of all plots of the property to be valued).
The planning and building law was presented and evaluated in a comprehensible manner (e.g. developability, key figures for developability, legal bases).
The register of building encumbrances, the list of monuments and the register of contaminated sites were reviewed and assessed in a comprehensible manner.
The information regarding the location of the property was assessed in a comprehensible manner (e.g. access to roads, public transport, local amenities, public facilities).
The information regarding the neighborhood of the property (e.g. use, noise) was assessed in a comprehensible manner.
The information regarding the shape of the property (e.g. cross-section, elevation, slope, accessibility) was assessed in a comprehensible manner.
A description of the buildings and outdoor facilities is available. Information regarding the type of construction, building method, year of construction, modernizations, additions or alterations, room layout, and features (such as windows, doors, floors, pipes, walls, heating, hot water, sewage, energy supply, and special features) has been presented and assessed in a comprehensible manner.
The plot size is plausible.
The land value was chosen plausibly.
Information on living space, usable space, floor area and gross floor area was provided and its sources (measurements, plans, etc.) documented.
Rental agreements and any special provisions regarding maintenance reserves (condominium owners’ association), etc., were presented and taken into account.
Chapter 3
The selection of the valuation method(s) was presented with a comprehensible justification.
The size of the property and the land value were plausibly taken into account in the valuation.
A realistic approach to the building value (in relation to property type, features/construction method, depreciation due to age) has been taken.
Area and mass calculations are plausible and verifiable.
The ratio of gross floor area to living/usable area was chosen plausibly.
The relationship between yield and land value was plausibly presented or comprehensibly explained.
The chosen rental rates are plausible, and existing rental and lease agreements were substantiated.
The chosen operating costs are plausible.
The chosen capitalization rate is plausible.
The chosen remaining economic useful life is plausible.
The remaining parameters for the valuation methods were chosen plausibly.
Specific property characteristics, such as building defects or damage, were presented in a comprehensible manner and verified.
The parameters used in the valuation methods were explained in a comprehensible manner.
The calculations are mathematically (approximately) accurate.
The criteria for marketability and suitability for third-party use were taken into account.
All necessary information for the comprehensibility of the report is included in the appendices (e.g. maps, site plans, floor plans, calculations, photos).
Answers to the most common questions about the plausibility check, the Jardin checklist, and what a tax-authority-accepted property appraisal needs to deliver.
In a plausibility check, a property appraisal is examined to see whether it was prepared in a formally, factually and methodically sound way. The tax authority uses a checklist (nach Jardin) to decide whether an appraisal, for example one for a reduced remaining useful life, can be accepted.
Tax offices accept appraisals from experts who can prove their qualifications, for example through a public appointment and swearing-in or a certification such as DIN EN ISO/IEC 17024. The expert should have inspected the property in person and written the report independently.
A plausible appraisal is systematically structured, states its purpose and valuation bases, documents every source it relies on, and gives a clear justification for the parameters it chooses, such as the remaining useful life, land value and operating costs. The checklist on this page walks you through these points step by step.
Formal requirements include the expert’s signature, proof of qualifications, a stated valuation purpose with reference to Section 194 BauGB, a personal inspection of the property, and the naming of the client and everyone who contributed.
Yes. A personal inspection is one of the formal requirements. It lets the expert record the actual condition, fittings and any defects first-hand, rather than relying on documents alone. An appraisal without an on-site visit is a frequent reason for rejection.
The remaining useful life determines how quickly a building can be depreciated for tax. A shorter remaining useful life means higher annual depreciation, so the tax office looks closely at how the figure was derived. The appraisal has to justify it plausibly and back it with the building’s condition, modernizations and construction.
Among others, the land register (owner, rights and encumbrances), the cadastre, planning and building law, and the registers of building encumbrances, monuments and contaminated sites. Floor areas and rents should be documented with their sources, such as measurements, plans or tenancy agreements.
The comparative value, income and asset value methods are all recognized. What matters is that the appraisal explains why the chosen method fits the property and applies its parameters, such as the capitalization rate and land value, plausibly and verifiably.
The most common reasons are missing or unproven qualifications, no personal inspection, undocumented floor areas, parameters that are not justified, or calculation errors. The checklist covers exactly these points, so you can spot weaknesses before you submit.
Not strictly. At the end of 2025 the Federal Ministry of Finance withdrew its stricter 2023 rules, so using a publicly appointed or DIN EN ISO/IEC 17024 certified expert is no longer a hard requirement. Proof of a shorter useful life now follows Section 7 (4) sentence 2 of the Income Tax Act (EStG) and the case law of the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH). A qualified appraiser is still the safest choice, because it makes the report much harder to challenge.
Section 7 (4) sentence 2 EStG lets owners depreciate a building over its shorter actual useful life. The Federal Fiscal Court confirmed in its rulings IX R 25/19 (2021) and IX R 14/23 (2024) that any method suitable in the individual case may be used, including the model derivation of the remaining useful life under the ImmoWertV.
It can come from a market value appraisal, as long as that appraisal derives the remaining useful life specifically for the property and explains it in a comprehensible way. What the tax office does not accept is a figure carried over without an object-specific justification. A dedicated remaining-useful-life report is one clean way to provide that justification.
The model calculation under the ImmoWertV is an accepted starting point, but not enough on its own. The appraisal has to apply it to the actual property, taking into account its condition, modernizations, defects and any restrictions on use, rather than plugging in standard figures. A purely schematic calculation without this individual assessment is a common reason for rejection.
It is a review list the tax authority uses to assess the plausibility of market value appraisals in a structured way. It is split into formal requirements, factual requirements, and plausibility and valuation requirements.
Still have questions? Our team is happy to help.
