The X. Senat allows a sole heir
Bundesfinanzhof to repay an inherited home-acquisition loan with subsidised retirement capital.Bundesfinanzhof In the judgment of 21 September 2026, X R 3/24, the court rejects the revision of the Zentrale Zulagenstelle für AltersvermögenBundesfinanzhof against the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg judgment of 18 December 2023, 15 K 15045/23. The discharge with gefördertem Altersvorsorgevermögen is favoured under § 92a(1)(1)(1) Einkommensteuergesetz (EStG)Bundesfinanzhof even where the decedent borrowedBundesfinanzhof, where the beneficiary as Alleinerbe and Gesamtrechtsnachfolger has become debtor of the loan and owner of the self-occupied dwellingBundesfinanzhof.
The claimant inherited from his wife, who died in 2021, after she had created a flat in 1998 on her parents' land with several loans, one rescheduled in 2015. He had lived there since 2017Bundesfinanzhof and succeeded to the land and the rescheduled loanBundesfinanzhof. In February 2022 he applied under §§ 92a and 92b EStGBundesfinanzhof to withdraw capital from his own AltersvorsorgevertragBundesfinanzhof to discharge itBundesfinanzhofBundesfinanzhof. The ZfA refused because inheritance is no acquisition for consideration. The Finanzgericht granted the claim: no own loan and no Anschaffung, but, on its reasoning, the repayment variant is met via § 45 Abgabenordnung (AO) and the Grosser Senat (GrS 2/04) where an heir assumes the loan by universal succession — a route the BFH later leaves openBundesfinanzhof.
The ZfA argued directness must be established by the beneficiary personally, that passage of liability under § 1967 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) with ownership under § 1922(1) BGB does not make the beneficiary a borrower, that assumed liabilities are a mere accounting item, that the decedent held no certified contract, and that the death-case rules in § 92a(2a)(5) and (3)(6) EStG and § 93(1)(4)(c) EStG are exhaustive. The claimant replied he had fully entered the decedent's position, so at application they were his loans.
The Senat decides without oral hearing by agreement with costs on the defendant. A beneficiary may use subsidised contract capital before payout directly to acquire or build or to repay a loan taken for that purpose, the Entschuldungsalternative, with directness required for bothBundesfinanzhof. The wording for repayment of a loan taken for that purpose links loan to acquisition but does not demand that the beneficiary personally borrowedBundesfinanzhof; that would require von ihm selbst, as held on 2 April 2025 in X R 6/22.
Here the claimant as sole heir became owner of the 1998 dwellingBundesfinanzhof, self-occupied since 2017 as Hauptwohnung and Lebensmittelpunkt under § 92a(1)(5) EStGBundesfinanzhof, and debtor of the 2015 loan under §§ 1922(1) and 1967 BGBBundesfinanzhof, leaving § 45 AO open. The decedent's lack of a certified contract is immaterialBundesfinanzhof: her 1998 loans were directly used for Herstellung and that directness continues through the 2015 refinancing, with findings binding for want of challenge. Because he holds the retirement contract himselfBundesfinanzhof, no accessory question arises. The §§ 79ff EStG death-beneficiary rules concern death of the beneficiary and entry into the Zulageberechtigung, not civil succession to flat and loanBundesfinanzhof, and purpose — mietfreies Wohnen im Alter — is served with no third-party discharge, the heir being burdened by repayment and interest under § 488(1)(2) BGB. Later entry into follow-on financing as in X R 6/22 differs because it created a new Schuldgrund without acquisition linkBundesfinanzhof, whereas succession preserved the financing function. The guide invokes §§ 79ff, 92a, 92b and 93 EStG, § 45 AO and §§ 488, 1922 and 1967 BGB across the sections above.
As a sole heir who inherits a self-occupied dwelling with its acquisition loan, apply under sections 92a/92b EStG to withdraw Wohn-Riester capital for repayment, documenting sole-heir status, loan succession and self-occupation.
