Beware False Price in the Deeds in Bulgaria

Overseas buyers looking to purchase property in Bulgaria frequently hear that the regular practice is to put a lower price in the deeds to save money. Agents and even lawyers often assure the purchaser that most property transactions in Bulgaria are conducted precisely in this manner. The overseas buyer often poses no more questions, because they believe this information to be correct.

How wrong they are - there are such enomous risks to the buyer; it?s really important that people don?t get tricked with this.

Putting a lower price in the deeds during the last stage of the conveyancing process in Bulgaria is generally done because the vendor wishes to avoid taxes and fees which are due on final signing and which depend upon the property price which is declared in the deeds. The higher the value of the property, the higher the taxes and charges. But by declaring a lower price in the deeds than that which is actually being paid is an evasion of Bulgarian law and creates an ?invalid? or ?fake? deal and can lead to serious consequences.

From a civil law point of view this kind of ?fake? deal would be considered null and void anyway. To add to this, if you were found guilty of having been party to such a deal you could be charged with a fine of up to 1,000 pounds and even imprisonment of up to three years.

It is also a common practice at the moment with Bulgarian constructors who are trying to avoid VAT which has to be paid on new build or off plan sales. They offer the potential of putting in a low and false price in order that they do not pay all or any of the VAT due.

For the overseas buyer, one can only imagine what any mortgage company might have to say about all of this if at a later date they become aware of the property being under-declared on the deeds! Bulgarian estate agents often say, 'oh well, don't worry, you can do the same; just find someone else to pay you part in cash later', but it?s not that simple. With European entry looking increasingly likely in the immediate term, it won?t be so easy to find a buyer willing to do this and people trying to operate in this way will find it increasingly difficult to do so. Any buyer really has to ask himself whether he would do this in Britain with a similar proposal from an agent, paying in some cases up to 70% of the price in cash and then hoping to find a future buyer who would do the same.

Even if after all this, anyone still thinks it's a good idea to put a lower price in the final deed, then let?s take a look at the financial implications on just a small scale when it comes to re-sale. :

Firstly, if the full purchase price is declared Price 40,000 Taxes and Notary Fees about 3.5% 1,400 Re-sale Price 60,000 Profit 20,000 Gains Tax at 15% 3,000

Secondly, if a lower price is declared (the real price remains at 40,000 as in the first example above)...
Price 20,000
Taxes and Notary Fees about 3.5% 700
Re-sale Price 60,000
Profit 40,000
Gains tax at 15% 6,000

Initially,it looks good - 700 pounds is saved on the initial taxes and fees when buying. However, when it comes to re-sale there?s an additional tax burden of 3,000 pounds!.

The best advice we can give to anyone is to get your own independent lawyer who will act in your interests. Buyers should not be tempted by those that say this kind of practice in Bulgaria is above board, it?s certainly not and purchasers could end up in real difficulties all round.

This article courtesy of  http://www.mentzlaw.com.
You may freely read this information.
 

Recall Information about lawyer 

* Government Statistics on Legal Verdicts and Jury Awards - $ U.S. district courts terminated approximately 512,000 civil cases during fiscal years 2002-03. Nearly 20% or 98,786 of these cases were torts in which plaintiffs claimed injury, loss, or damage from a defendant’s negligent or intentional acts. $ Of the 98,786 tort cases terminated in U.S. district courts in 2002-03, about 2% or 1,647 cases were decided by a bench or jury trial. $ An estimated 9 out of 10 tort trials involved personal injury issues C most frequently, product liability, motor vehicle (accident), marine, and medical malpractice cases. $ Juries decided about 71% of all tort cases brought to trial in U.S. district courts; judges adjudicated the remaining 29%. $ Plaintiffs won in 48% of tort trials terminated in U.S. district courts in 2002-03. Plaintiffs won less frequently in medical malpractice (37%) and product liability (34%) trials. $ Eighty-four percent of plaintiff winners received monetary damages with an estimated median award of $201,000. $ Plaintiffs won more often in bench (54%) than in jury (46%) tort trials. The estimated median damage awards were higher in jury ($244,000) than in bench ($150,000) tort trials. April 2006 - A Jury in New Jersey found last week that Vioxx significantly contributed to a 77-year-old man's heart attack awarded him $9 million in punitive damages yesterday, raising Merck & Co.'s liability in the case to $13.5 million and intensifying pressure on it to settle such lawsuits. Example of Personal Injury Case 2004 : Ford Explorer rollover-prone and roof not crash safe and worthy- CASE TYPE : Product Design Defect, Auto Truck Vehicle - SUV, Motor Vehicle – Rollover CASE : Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., San Diego Co., Calif., Super. Ct. GIC 800836 Los Angeles, Calif. JURY VERDICT: $369,000,000 (369 Millions Dolalrs 2005 - In what may be one of the biggest massive medical malpractice tort verdicts in the state of Texas, a state jury awarded $606 million - including a remarkable $ 600 million dollars in punitive damages - to the family of an 82-year-old patient who had cancer and then who died after receiving an overdose of chemotherapy drugs. 2005 - In the 9th big loss for Ford in SUV Explorer rollover cases, a Florida jury awarded $61.2 million to the parents of an 18-year-old boy who was killed in a 1997 (wrongful death & Product Defect and Product Liability Issues) Example of Personal Injury Lawyer Case 2004 : Dodge Caravan seatback collapsed on baby in a car-seat - CASE TYPE : Automobiles, Products Liability - Product Design Defect, Wrongful Death, Motor Vehicle - Rear-ender, Motor Vehicle - Passenger, Motor Vehicle - Minivan CASE : Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Davidson Co., Tenn., Cir. Ct. O2C-1288 JURY VERDICT : $105,500,000 (105 Million Dollars 2005 – Billion Dollar Verdicts - In one of 2005's largest verdicts to an individual plaintiff regarding financial fraud , a Florida jury ordered Morgan Stanley Broker Dealer to pay $1.45 billion to investor Ronald O. Perelman for defrauding him in the sale of his camping gear company - Coleman. 2005 - February, a prominent Houston law firm and a Texas bank were SMACKED and Beaten with a $65.5 million verdict in a highly complex estate planning case that involved major problems and conflicts of interest. (65 million dollar jury award) 2005 – 3 years after a jury acquitted a company in Florida of manslaughter and criminal charges, a Florida civil jury SLAMMED the outdoor advertiser with a $65 million jury award verdict for the shock and electrocution of a sixth-grade boy. Age Discrimination - In December, a Los Angeles California jury found that PrivatAir - an aviation company focusing on private airline services - wrongfully fired Captain Doyle D. Baker on the basis of his age, defaming him in the termination process and causing extreme emotional distress.

Punitive damages serve a number of important functions which—despite a few horror stories, which are themselves either apocryphal or overturned in the courts, the functions remain valid and in the public interest. Persons causing great harm—persons deliberately or with gross negligence causing great harm should not view paying damages as merely a cost of doing business, a cost that might fit neatly into a risk analysis of wrongdoing. That is what happened in the Ford Pinto case in which the cost of paying claims to victims of a known deadly hazard was deemed less than the cost to retool the assembly line, and thus the hazard was maintained knowing full well that further people—more people would be injured or killed. This is the purpose of punitive damages, to punish this kind of egregious wrongdoing, and to deter, to be a deterrent to such conduct. It is not immediately clear why a deterrent—or the necessity of the deterrent should bear any great relationship to the amount of actual damages in a given case. There is nothing wrong and indeed something highly desirable in maintaining this disincentive to wrongdoing in an appropriate relationship to the harm and the conduct of the tort-feasor. This trend has led one commentator to suggest that ''[p]unitive damages have replaced baseball as our national sport.'' Theodore B. Olson, Rule of Law: The Dangerous National Sport of Punitive Damages, Wall St. J., Oct. 5, 1994, at A17. See also Malcolm E. Wheeler, A Proposal for Further Common Law Development of the Use of Punitive Damages in Modern Products Liability Litigation, 40 Ala. L. Rev. 919, 919 (1989) (''Today, hardly a month goes by without a multimillion-dollar punitive damages verdict in a product liability case.'').