IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sjobre/v71y2019i3d10.1007_s41471-019-00077-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maklergebühren und Grunderwerbsteuer als Wertsteuer mit aufgeteilter Zahllast: Eine ökonomische Analyse des „Bestellerprinzips“
[Real-Estate Purchase Tax and the Fees of Real-Estate Agents as a Shared Ad-Valorem Tax: An Economic Analysis of a German Law Reform]

Author

Listed:
  • Roland Kirstein

    (Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Aus der Literatur ist bekannt, dass die ökonomische Wirkung einer Mengensteuer unabhängig davon ist, welche Marktseite die Steuer zu zahlen hat. Marktergebnis und Steuerertrag hängen nur vom Steuersatz ab. Dieser Beitrag zeigt, dass dieses Neutralitätsresultat bei einer Wertsteuer, die mit konstantem Steuersatz auf den Nettomarktpreis aufgeschlagen wird, nicht gilt. Die Handelsmenge, der Nettopreis und der Steuerertrag hängen bei gegebenem Wertsteuersatz davon ab, wie die Zahllast zwischen den Marktseiten aufgeteilt wird. Die gehandelte Menge fällt am geringsten aus, wenn die Verkäufer die Wertsteuer zu zahlen haben, und steigt mit dem Anteil, den die Käufer zu zahlen haben. Die Steuerlast beider Marktseiten ist normalerweise (bei niedrigen Steuersätzen) am größten, wenn die Zahllast allein bei den Verkäufern liegt. Die relative steuerliche Belastung der beiden Marktseiten wird dagegen nicht von der Aufteilung beeinflusst. Wird also die Zahllast einer Wertsteuer von den Käufern auf die Verkäufer umgeschichtet, so hat dies für die Käuferseite keine Entlastungswirkung, ist jedoch allokativ ineffizient. Diese Erkenntnisse werden auf zwei aktuelle Gesetzesreformen angewandt: die Einführung des „Bestellerprinzips“ für Maklercourtagen im Markt für Miet- und Kaufimmobilien. Für Mietwohnungen wurde diese Reform bereits im Jahre 2015 implementiert; im Falle des Immobilienkaufs erwägt die Bundesregierung derzeit die Einführung. Maklercourtage, Grunderwerbsteuer sowie Gerichts- und Notargebühren sind prozentuale Aufschläge auf den vertraglich vereinbarten Nettopreis, bilden also zusammen eine Art Wertsteuer. Die formale Analyse legt den Schluss nahe, dass beide Gesetzesreformen allokative Ineffizienz fördern, jedoch weder Mieter noch Hauskäufer entlasten.

Suggested Citation

  • Roland Kirstein, 2019. "Maklergebühren und Grunderwerbsteuer als Wertsteuer mit aufgeteilter Zahllast: Eine ökonomische Analyse des „Bestellerprinzips“ [Real-Estate Purchase Tax and the Fees of Real-Estate Agents as a Sha," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 217-243, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:sjobre:v:71:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s41471-019-00077-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s41471-019-00077-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41471-019-00077-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41471-019-00077-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    2. Jochen Michaelis & Georg Wangenheim, 2016. "Das Bestellerprinzip — Entlastung für den Mieter oder Augenwischerei? [The Principle “Who Orders Pays”: Easing the Burden for Tenants or Just Window Dressing?]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 96(5), pages 326-332, May.
    3. Koskela, Erkki & Schob, Ronnie, 1999. "Does the composition of wage and payroll taxes matter under Nash bargaining?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 343-349, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Estelle Malavolti, 2016. "Single Till or Dual Till at airports: a Two-Sided Market Analysis," Post-Print hal-01406372, HAL.
    2. Martin Peitz & Sven Rady & Piers Trepper, 2017. "Experimentation in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 128-172.
    3. Lam, W., 2015. "Switching Costs in Two-sided Markets," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2015024, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. V. I. Blanutsa, 2022. "Geographic Research of the Platform Economy: Existing and Potential Approaches," Regional Research of Russia, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 133-142, June.
    5. Waterson, Michael, 2023. "Platforms as arbitrageurs and facilitators of arbitrage- a simple analysis," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1481, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Buechel, Berno & Krähenmann, Philemon, 2022. "Fixed price equilibria on peer‐to‐peer platforms: Lessons from time‐based currencies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 335-358.
    8. Amelio, Andrea & Giardino-Karlinger, Liliane & Valletti, Tommaso, 2020. "Exclusionary pricing in two-sided markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    9. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    10. Fabio M. Manenti & Ernesto Somma, 2002. "Plastic Clashes: Competition among Closed and Open Systems in the Credit Card Industry," Industrial Organization 0211012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Tim Paul Thomes, 2010. "Vertically Related Markets of Collective Licensing of Differentiated Copyrights with Indirect Network Effects," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-056, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Shohei Yoshida, 2018. "Bargaining power and firm profits in asymmetric duopoly: an inverted-U relationship," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 139-158, June.
    13. Jean-Michel Sahut & Luca Iandoli & Frédéric Teulon, 2021. "The age of digital entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1159-1169, February.
    14. Bolt, Wilko & Tieman, Alexander F., 2008. "Heavily skewed pricing in two-sided markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1250-1255, September.
    15. Prabirendra Chatterjee & Bo Zhou, 2021. "Sponsored Content Advertising in a Two-Sided Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7560-7574, December.
    16. Julia Rothbauer & Gernot Sieg, 2013. "Public Service Broadcasting of Sport, Shows, and News to Mitigate Rational Ignorance," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 21-40, March.
    17. Allen, Darcy W.E. & Berg, Chris & Markey-Towler, Brendan & Novak, Mikayla & Potts, Jason, 2020. "Blockchain and the evolution of institutional technologies: Implications for innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    18. Moraga-Gonzalez, Jose L. & Wildenbeest, Matthijs R., 2011. "Comparison sites," IESE Research Papers D/933, IESE Business School.
      • Jose Luis Moraga-Gonzalez & Matthijs R. Wildenbeest, 2011. "Comparison Sites," Working Papers 2011-04, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    19. Attila Ambrus & Emilio Calvano & Markus Reisinger, 2016. "Either or Both Competition: A "Two-Sided" Theory of Advertising with Overlapping Viewerships," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 189-222, August.
    20. Bach Quang Ho & Yuki Inoue, 2020. "Driving Network Externalities in Education for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sjobre:v:71:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s41471-019-00077-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.