{"id":30658,"date":"2025-05-31T09:02:30","date_gmt":"2025-05-31T07:02:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/?p=30658"},"modified":"2026-06-22T21:42:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T19:42:18","slug":"asset-protection-for-property-owners","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/asset-protection-for-property-owners\/","title":{"rendered":"Protecting Real-Estate Wealth: Legal Strategies for Property Owners"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"28745\" class=\"elementor elementor-28745\" data-elementor-post-type=\"post\">\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e640d77 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent\" data-id=\"e640d77\" data-element_type=\"container\" data-e-type=\"container\">\n<div class=\"e-con-inner\">\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-f0c4168 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"f0c4168\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>In uncertain times, many affluent property owners ask themselves how to protect their assets effectively against state access and creeping expropriation. Whether political moves to nationalise large housing companies, debates over a new burden-sharing levy (Lastenausgleich) from 2025, or far-reaching tax reforms \u2013 the risks keep mounting. Added to this are compulsory-share claims (Pflichtteil, forced heirship) from disinherited relatives and rising inheritance taxes, which can severely erode family wealth built up over decades. This article examines the key dangers and sets out legally sound, strategic solutions: from family foundations at home and abroad, through trust structures, usufruct arrangements and lifetime gifts as part of anticipated succession, to holding structures, relocation of residence and asset protection in an international context. The focus lies in particular on the indirect mechanisms by which property owners come under increasing pressure \u2013 often without this appearing, at first glance, to be expropriation:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Recurring demands for a wealth tax \u2013 in particular on land and real-estate holdings<\/li>\n<li>Sharply rising ancillary costs such as energy, water and waste disposal \u2013 often amplified by CO\u2082 levies or additional infrastructure charges (\u201cair taxes\u201d)<\/li>\n<li>Expanding obligations for energy-efficiency refurbishment, for instance under the EEG 2007\/2009 (German Renewable Energy Sources Act) \u2013 rarely enforced so far, but a nationwide \u201cbuilding inspection\u201d (Haus-T\u00dcV) is already being prepared politically<\/li>\n<li>Persistent currency debasement \u2013 with perceived inflation well above the official figures, directly affecting property management and reserves<\/li>\n<li>Falling real purchasing power despite nominal pension increases \u2013 while operating costs, maintenance expenditure and state burdens rise unchecked<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Against this backdrop, forward-looking, legally secured asset structuring is not a luxury but a necessary precaution.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-bbd8490 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"bbd8490\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>In what follows, we first examine the principal risks to which real-estate assets are currently exposed. We then set out practical protection strategies \u2013 from the classic family foundation to relocation of residence. Discreet insights from the circles of wealthy families indicate that some of these steps are already in use (for example, transferring properties into foreign foundations or trusts). By the end, you will know which options exist to secure your real-estate assets against access \u2013 and why experienced experts such as Dr. Johannes Fiala are indispensable to their implementation.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-387bdf8 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"387bdf8\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Current Risks to Real-Estate Wealth in Germany<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-916f0de elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"916f0de\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>Before turning to the solutions, it is important to understand the threats. Affluent property owners face a range of risks \u2013 from potential political intervention and special levies to dangers under inheritance and tax law. A brief overview:<\/p>\n<p>Political intervention and (creeping) expropriation<\/p>\n<p>The Grundgesetz (German Basic Law) guarantees property, but permits expropriation for the common good against compensation. What long seemed merely theoretical has recently taken on real urgency. In Berlin, for example, around 59% of voters in a 2021 referendum supported the expropriation of large housing corporations. While that initiative targets companies owning more than 3,000 flats, the signal is clear: political majorities for drastic interference with real-estate ownership cannot be ruled out. Even if such expropriations were ultimately tied to compensation, they reveal a climate in which owners come under increasing pressure.<\/p>\n<p>Alongside open expropriation looms \u201ccreeping expropriation\u201d. Experts use this term for developments that effectively hollow out the value of, or control over, real estate without the state formally expropriating it. Examples include strict rent-price controls, compulsory energy-efficiency refurbishments, or requirements that impose high costs on landlords. Inflation and low interest rates also act as indirect expropriation by devaluing assets or eroding returns. Property values in particular have risen sharply in recent years, which whets appetites: \u201cFor the state, this wealth is especially attractive, because houses and land cannot be moved abroad. Burdening it is therefore particularly easy and lucrative.\u201d In other words: real estate is tied to a location \u2013 the ideal attack vector for state measures, since owners can evade them less easily than, say, financial investors.<\/p>\n<p>Political risks should be neither dramatised nor underestimated. The fact that the socialisation of housing is being seriously debated in Berlin, or that concepts for tougher intervention keep surfacing at federal level, should serve as a wake-up call. Privately held real-estate wealth is not yet squarely in the crosshairs \u2013 but the framework conditions can change. Anyone holding large assets in real estate is well advised to take precautionary protective measures. Because once the wind turns, it is often too late to react quickly.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-458f8c8 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"458f8c8\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Burden-Sharing Levy and Wealth Taxes<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-a9714bf elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"a9714bf\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>A spectre haunting owners\u2019 circles is the burden-sharing levy (Lastenausgleich) \u2013 a special charge on wealth, real-estate wealth in particular, modelled on the historical precedent of 1952. Back then, after the war, the Lastenausgleichsgesetz (Equalisation of Burdens Act) came into force to compensate war victims. It was financed by a 50% capital levy on real-estate property and other assets, payable over 30 years. Millions of homeowners effectively had to take out a compulsory mortgage and pay it down over decades. Today \u2013 in view of high public debt from the pandemic and the energy crisis \u2013 such a step is officially denied, yet repeatedly floated. In recent months, statements and demands have multiplied in politics that at least hint at a new burden-sharing levy. Considerations of capital levies are thus no longer taboo; the corresponding voices are growing \u201cever louder\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>According to government statements, there are currently no concrete plans for a burden-sharing levy in 2024 or 2025 \u2013 to that extent, owners could initially breathe a sigh of relief. Nonetheless, the subject persists stubbornly in the media and among specialists. Much suggests that preparations are at least being made to enable swift action should the need arise. In 2022, a census was conducted that gathered precise details of all properties and owners. At the same time, the property-tax reform (Grundsteuerreform) is under way, revaluing around 35 million properties by 2025. Critics note that these measures create a data foundation on which a capital levy could easily be built. Indeed, the EU has already deliberated on a central asset register recording all citizens\u2019 assets \u2013 a nightmare from the perspective of the wealthy, since the state would then know at the push of a button who owns how much.<\/p>\n<p>What might a burden-sharing levy in 2025 look like? Scenarios range from one-off special taxes, through a revival of the compulsory mortgage, to indirect measures. Under discussion are, for example, extended speculation periods for property sales (say, a 15-year rather than 10-year holding period for tax exemption) or the partial taxation of previously tax-free sale gains. Also on the table is a capital levy of 10% to 30% on property values, payable over longer periods. Extreme scenarios even speak of a 50% levy \u2013 as in 1952. Such a burden would bring many property owners to their knees. While instalment payments over 20\u201330 years could be provided for, a large part of private real-estate wealth would ultimately be skimmed off by the state.<\/p>\n<p>For now, all of this remains thought experiments and rumour. Officially, the Federal Government insists that no equalisation-of-burdens act is on the agenda. But one should not be wholly lulled by this reassurance. \u201cThe encumbrance of property by the state is nothing new,\u201d warns more than one commentator, \u201cand the discussion has been running for a very long time.\u201d In the event of a severe financial crisis, things could move quickly. Property owners should at least keep this possibility in mind and take precautions to bring their assets to safety if in doubt. For one thing is clear: should a burden-sharing levy come, it will be too late to act then.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-b0a01d2 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"b0a01d2\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Compulsory-Share Claims and Inheritance-Tax Reforms<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-78dbfcf elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"78dbfcf\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>It is not only the state that can become a \u201cco-heir\u201d to your wealth \u2013 the family, too, poses a risk in the form of compulsory-share claims. Under German inheritance law, close relatives (children, spouses, and where applicable parents) have a statutory minimum share of the estate even if they have been disinherited by will. This compulsory share (Pflichtteil) amounts to half of the statutory share of inheritance. For property owners with substantial wealth this means: you cannot freely dispose by will of whom you leave your properties to. If, for instance, you disinherit a child entirely, that child can nonetheless demand payment in money of its half statutory share. In the worst case, properties must be sold or mortgaged to settle compulsory-share claims \u2013 a considerable threat to family harmony and to the preservation of wealth.<\/p>\n<p>There are, admittedly, structuring options to reduce compulsory-share claims (more on this later), but they can rarely be avoided entirely. Particularly treacherous are supplementary compulsory-share claims (Pflichtteilserg\u00e4nzungsanspr\u00fcche): gifts the testator made within the 10 years before death are notionally added back to the estate. The value to be counted does decrease by 10% per year, so that after 10 years no supplementary claim should, in principle, remain. But beware: several exceptions override this 10-year period. In particular, gifts to children in which the donor reserves a right of residence or a usufruct often only start the clock running once that right is given up. This means that many properties transferred \u201cduring one\u2019s lifetime\u201d nevertheless fall into the compulsory-share calculation if the testator did not hand them over very early and without reservations. Without planning, therefore, a considerable part of real-estate wealth can be forced into the hands of unwanted heirs \u2013 against the testator\u2019s will. The aim must therefore be to structure assets so that <em>desired<\/em> heirs are favoured and <em>unjust<\/em> compulsory-share payments can be minimised.<\/p>\n<p>Beyond intra-family constraints, tax pressures loom. Inheritance tax is more likely to rise than fall in the coming years. As early as the start of 2023, properties were valued more highly for inheritances and gifts, which in effect increases the tax burden. Moreover, much is up for debate politically in 2025: many parties are calling for reforms, some of them drastic. One example: the Left Party proposes cutting the inheritance-tax allowance for children to just \u20ac150,000 and raising the top rate to 60% for estates above \u20ac3 million. Even if such an extreme model currently has little chance of being realised, such demands indicate the direction of travel. Even more moderate plans aim to make large private fortunes pay more, while at most the owner-occupied family home would remain tax-free. For affluent property owners this means: inheriting is becoming more expensive. Anyone wishing to pass many or valuable properties to the next generation risks a large part of them going to the state as tax \u2013 unless the legal structuring routes are used to transfer values before reforms take hold.<\/p>\n<p>In summary, then, the starting position is decidedly alarming: political risks ranging from expropriation to special levies, together with risks under inheritance and tax law, threaten to attack hard-won real-estate wealth. Fortunately, there are counter-strategies to secure property. In the next section, we present the most important protective solutions. None of them is trivial \u2013 but each can, correctly applied, help ensure that <em>your<\/em> wealth remains <em>your<\/em> wealth.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-348e6c8 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"348e6c8\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Strategies and Solutions for Protecting Real-Estate Wealth<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-678546e elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"678546e\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>There is no patent remedy that neutralises all risks at once. Rather, what matters is an intelligent combination of tailored measures. In the following, we present the most common strategies for protecting real-estate wealth. Each has advantages and disadvantages and must be adapted to the individual situation. It is important to note: these instruments are no substitute for legal advice; they work reliably only in the hands of experts. Nonetheless, owners should know the options \u2013 as a starting point for further planning discussions.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d154ee1 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d154ee1\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">The Family Foundation \u2013 Asset Protection Across Generations<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-5b43ef2 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"5b43ef2\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>A family foundation (Familienstiftung) is a proven instrument for securing family wealth \u2013 real estate in particular \u2013 over the long term and removing it from direct access. A portion of the assets (for example a property portfolio) is contributed to a legally independent foundation. The owner of the properties is then the foundation, no longer the private individual. The founder (i.e. the former owner) defines in the foundation\u2019s charter which purposes the assets serve and which family members benefit as beneficiaries. Typically, family members receive regular distributions or rights of use, but they cannot freely dispose of the foundation\u2019s assets. The foundation itself \u201cbelongs to itself\u201d \u2013 there are no shareholders, only governing bodies (a board and, where applicable, an advisory council) acting in accordance with the founder\u2019s will.<\/p>\n<p>Why is this good protection? Because the assets in the foundation are separated from your private wealth. When the founder dies, the contributed properties do not fall into their estate. Disinherited relatives therefore have, in principle, no compulsory-share claim against the foundation\u2019s assets. The very aim of a family foundation is for the wealth to benefit the desired heirs (usually several family generations) on a lasting basis, without having to pay significant sums to disinherited persons entitled to a compulsory share. Naturally, certain conditions must be met for this to work \u2013 the foundation should be established early (keyword: the 10-year period), and the founder must not reserve overly extensive rights (such as a usufruct) that diminish the effect. Even so: the family foundation can drastically reduce compulsory-share claims and, above all, prevents the fragmentation of wealth among heirs. The properties remain wholly owned by the foundation and cannot be sold by individual heirs.<\/p>\n<p>The foundation also offers protection against creditors. If a property belongs to the foundation, a creditor of an individual family member cannot readily access that property \u2013 any personal insolvency of beneficiaries does not endanger the foundation\u2019s assets. Likewise, the foundation\u2019s assets are largely shielded from new marriages and from equalisation of accrued gains (Zugewinnausgleich) on divorce, since they do not belong to the beneficiaries personally. In short: an intelligently designed foundation creates a safe harbour for family real estate.<\/p>\n<p>The family foundation does, however, also have disadvantages and costs. In Germany it is subject, for example, to the so-called substitute inheritance tax (Erbersatzsteuer) \u2013 every 30 years inheritance tax falls due on a flat-rate basis (as if a transfer of assets had occurred), typically around 30% of the foundation\u2019s assets. The establishment itself can also be tax-triggering depending on its scope (gift tax). Administration and ongoing obligations (such as annual reports to the foundation supervisory authority) add to this. These outlays are usually modest, however, compared with preserving the core of the wealth across generations. Many affluent families accept the costs in order to safeguard property values permanently.<\/p>\n<p>Practical example: a family foundation is often combined with other measures. For instance, a family company (GmbH &amp; Co. KG) can be interposed, into which the properties are contributed \u2013 the shares in that company are then held by the foundation. This can have tax advantages. It is equally possible to place only part of the wealth (for example the property portfolio) into the foundation and to arrange other parts separately. Individual structuring is decisive. (You will find more details and examples on the foundation in our<a href=\"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/?p=30649\" target=\"_blank\"> specialised article on the family foundation.<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e90a094 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"e90a094\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Foundations Abroad (Liechtenstein &amp; Co.)<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-070a763 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"070a763\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>Alongside the German family foundation, some wealthy individuals turn to foreign foundations \u2013 here Liechtenstein is especially popular. The Liechtenstein family foundation, or the trust under Liechtenstein law, offers advantages similar to the German foundation: assets are bound on a lasting basis, beneficiaries receive defined rights, and <em>forced heirship<\/em> (compulsory-share compulsion) does not exist in Liechtenstein in the strict form found in Germany. A decisive plus, however, is the lower tax burden and the greater discretion. Liechtenstein levies no substitute inheritance tax; the foundation is taxed there only moderately (a small annual flat fee). Moreover, <em>founders<\/em> and <em>beneficiaries<\/em> in Liechtenstein are frequently not publicly registered, which ensures a high degree of anonymity. In uncertain times in particular, many clients value this discretion.<\/p>\n<p>An example: Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Andorra \u2013 four small principalities in Europe \u2013 have <em>no<\/em> enforcement agreements with Germany. German court judgments are not recognised there; creditors would, in case of doubt, have to bring fresh proceedings in Liechtenstein, which is extremely laborious and costly. For foreign foundations this means that a German creditor, or even the tax authorities, cannot simply access the Liechtenstein foundation\u2019s assets. Wealth in an account in Vaduz or in a Liechtenstein foundation is largely protected from German access. By way of comparison: within the EU (with the exception of Denmark) there is the European Account Preservation Order, which facilitates cross-border enforcement \u2013 in Liechtenstein, by contrast, there is not.<\/p>\n<p>No wonder, then, that Liechtenstein is regarded as a safe harbour. Politically neutral, economically stable (AAA rating) and with direct access to the EU single market while remaining independent in tax matters, the principality offers ideal conditions for asset protection. In recent years, many Germans have discreetly established foundations in Liechtenstein or moved their liquid funds into Liechtenstein accounts \u2013 often in combination with specially structured life insurance policies (so-called insurance wrappers). These measures are legal, but require careful advice to handle German tax obligations correctly. For caution is needed: moving assets abroad does not automatically exempt one from domestic taxes. Anyone who, for example, continues to reside in Germany and owns a Liechtenstein foundation must, depending on the structure, observe gift tax and ongoing income taxes. The disclosure obligations are also strict \u2013 foreign foundations must be reported to the tax office, otherwise tax risks loom. Nonetheless, a foreign foundation can offer enormous protection within a well-considered strategy \u2013 politically in particular. Should a capital levy one day come domestically, assets held abroad tend to be harder to seize than domestic wealth.<\/p>\n<p>Note: besides Liechtenstein, other jurisdictions are also interesting for foundations\/trusts, for example foundations in Switzerland, Luxembourg or Austria (foundation-like private foundations) as well as common-law trusts overseas. Each has its particularities. Liechtenstein stands out because it lies very close to Germany, is German-speaking and offers excellent legal stability. Which jurisdiction best fits depends on the individual case \u2013 professional <em>asset-protection<\/em> advisers weigh this up. What matters is that foreign solutions must be embedded in a <em>legally clean<\/em> way; they are then not \u201cdubious shifting of assets\u201d but legitimate arrangements to preserve property from unjustified access.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d24c47d elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d24c47d\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Trusts (the Anglo-American Trust as a Protective Vehicle)<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-09e2ac1 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"09e2ac1\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>While foundations are recognised and regulated in the German-speaking world, German law knows no trust. Nonetheless, a trust under foreign law can be a very effective weapon in asset protection. A <em>trust<\/em> is \u2013 put simply \u2013 a common-law construction in which ownership of assets is split into <em>legal title<\/em> and <em>beneficial interest<\/em>. The trustee receives formal ownership and manages the assets, while the beneficiaries receive the income or use from them. The clever part: the trust itself is not registered as a legal person; it operates, as it were, in the background. Neither the trust\u2019s existence nor the names of the beneficiaries are made public \u2013 <em>a trust operates anonymously<\/em>; apart from those involved, no one knows of its establishment. This confidentiality makes trusts extremely attractive to the wealthy.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, trusts are regarded as vehicles of the super-rich. Estimates suggest that more than USD 36 trillion worldwide is held protected from access in trusts. Old families in England, the USA and many Commonwealth states have had dynastic trusts for centuries to preserve their wealth across generations. The secret of these dynasties is not necessarily spectacular investment performance, but that they <em>do not let their wealth be taken from them<\/em>. A well-constructed trust offers protection against creditors and unwanted heirs \u2013 even creditors holding a judgment struggle to reach the bound assets. And the fact that tax offices and regulatory authorities have only limited means of accessing trust assets is a welcome side effect.<\/p>\n<p>How can a German property owner use a trust? In practice, this is often done by choosing a foreign legal system that recognises trusts (for example certain US states such as South Dakota or Delaware, or offshore domiciles such as Guernsey, the Cayman Islands, etc.). The owner transfers their assets \u2013 for instance the shares in a property company or other rights \u2013 to a trustee, who now holds them <em>for them<\/em>, though not in their name. The beneficiaries can be the owner themselves (during their lifetime) and their family (after their death). Important: in Germany, recognition of a trust is examined case by case; Germany has not ratified the Hague Trust Convention. Nonetheless, the effects of a trust can in fact materialise, especially where assets are physically located abroad or the trust is combined with other arrangements.<\/p>\n<p>One advantage of the trust over the foundation is its flexibility. Trusts can be set up relatively quickly and dissolved or amended just as quickly. There are various types of trust (revocable, irrevocable, discretionary, and so on), tailored as required. For instance, a dynasty trust in some US states allows wealth to be kept in the family forever without ever being subject to inheritance tax \u2013 because formally no succession event occurs. Wealth can also be pooled across national borders in a trust. In our advisory practice, we see that affluent Germans increasingly use trust structures in the USA, partly in response to banks\u2019 automatic exchange of information. Ironically, the USA (which does not participate in the CRS agreement) is now regarded as a kind of \u201csafe haven\u201d for foreigners \u2013 wealth in a US trust is managed discreetly there, and as long as the beneficiary is not a US person, there is barely any reporting abroad.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, a trust must not be misunderstood as a miracle cure. In tax terms a trust can be delicate: German tax law often treats trusts as transparent entities attributed to the founder (keywords: access under the AStG (German Foreign Tax Act), interposition of an asset-managing company, etc.). If a trust is set up clumsily, the worst case brings gift tax or problems with exit tax (Wegzugsbesteuerung). Moreover, one must be able to <em>let go<\/em> \u2013 a serious trust that genuinely protects requires giving the trustee actual power of disposal. Many wealthy individuals find this hard and therefore prefer foundations, in whose bodies they can often sit themselves.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless: for the right purpose, a trust is ideal. For example, to stymie a person entitled to a compulsory share who would have claims under German law \u2013 by transferring assets into a US trust over which German law has no direct access. Or to achieve creditor protection: creditors would first have to sue in the USA, the trust assets are safe until then and, where applicable, protected by <em>discretionary clauses<\/em> such that even if the action succeeds, nothing concrete need be handed over. These subtleties are highly complex \u2013 so always structure them with experts! (Feel free to read our in-depth article <em>Trusts in Asset Protection<\/em>, which explains the mechanisms and pitfalls in detail.)<\/p>\n<p>Conclusion on the trust: a trust offers maximum flexibility and discretion. Combined with intelligent tax planning (where applicable, relocation of residence, see below), it can deliver enormous advantages legally. However, one moves here in a grey area of German law \u2013 not illegal, but unfamiliar. This makes sound advice indispensable. Yet anyone who takes this royal road can make their real-estate values virtually unassailable, <em>by the state and by third parties alike<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ed08fcb elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"ed08fcb\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Usufruct Arrangements and Right-of-Residence Concepts<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-49536f1 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"49536f1\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>A frequently used arrangement in anticipated succession is the usufruct model. Here a property owner (typically a parent) transfers the property to the next generation (for example children) but reserves a lifelong right of usufruct (Nie\u00dfbrauch). Usufruct means that the transferor may continue to use the object and draw all income from it (such as rental income), even though they are no longer the owner. This model has several advantages:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>For gift-tax purposes, only the discounted value is transferred. Since the usufruct reduces the value of the gift, often considerably less tax is due than on an undivided transfer. In the best case, one stays below the allowances.<\/li>\n<li>The transferor secures their retirement provision \u2013 they can continue to live in the property or collect rents, so that little changes financially.<\/li>\n<li>The object is removed from the senior\u2019s estate. Should the transferor later become in need of care or run into financial difficulties, the house already belongs to the children; creditors or social-welfare providers find it harder to access (although there are blocking periods here).<\/li>\n<li>For the heirs, the transfer of assets is already arranged during the transferor\u2019s lifetime; the house need not be transferred through a succession event, which saves disputes and costs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Sounds ideal \u2013 but there are downsides too. In compulsory-share terms, a usufruct model can be a trap. As mentioned above, the 10-year period for supplementary compulsory-share claims only begins once the usufruct is fully given up. So as long as the transferor is still alive and holds the usufruct, the clock does not tick. If they die without having previously lifted the usufruct, the gift is treated as though it had been made <em>in the year before death<\/em> \u2013 the full value can be relevant for compulsory-share claims. In such cases, the transfer has gained <em>nothing<\/em> in terms of reducing the compulsory share. The children as new owners may have to pay the disinherited siblings a share of the house\u2019s value, even though they perhaps do not want to sell the house at all.<\/p>\n<p>Nonetheless, the usufruct model, intelligently deployed, can be very helpful in tax and liability terms. Thus properties can be transferred to descendants from one\u2019s mid-50s onwards in order to still reach the 10-year period (provided one is willing to give up the usufruct at some point). Or it is used deliberately to spread values during one\u2019s lifetime: parents can gift each child properties worth up to \u20ac400,000 (the allowance) on a 10-year cycle and retain a usufruct \u2013 this reduces the wealth to be bequeathed and makes optimal use of allowances. Furthermore: once the property is no longer owned by the parents, it is out of their attachable estate. Creditors of the parents could at most attach the usufruct (that is, the ongoing income), but not the ownership itself. For the children this offers a certain protection against the parents\u2019 risks (for example business debts).<\/p>\n<p>From an investor\u2019s perspective, the usufruct is also an instrument for saving tax: if, for example, the parents have a lower tax progression than the children, it can make sense to tax rental income still at the parents\u2019 level (via the usufruct), while the appreciation in value already belongs to the children.<\/p>\n<p>All in all, a usufruct model is a building-block element used in many family constellations. It does not, however, replace a comprehensive asset-protection strategy, since it serves primarily tax optimisation and orderly transfer, less protection against state intervention. A burden-sharing levy on real estate, for example, would still hit the <em>owner<\/em> (here the child) \u2013 unless one combines it, say, with the child\u2019s emigration before the levy is introduced. Here one can already see: such models develop their optimal effect in concert with other measures.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-85efa12 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"85efa12\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Gifts and Anticipated Succession (Compulsory-Share Strategies)<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-7a83dc1 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"7a83dc1\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>Separately from the usufruct, lifetime gifts should be noted generally as a strategy. Anticipated succession means that parents transfer parts of their wealth to the next generation during their lifetime, instead of bequeathing everything only on death. This allows allowances to be used afresh every 10 years and reduces the wealth to be bequeathed. Ideally, the testator ends up with only a fraction of their original wealth in the estate, so that compulsory-share claims turn out smaller or come to nothing entirely (once the 10-year period has been exceeded). For example, a married couple with two children can transfer a total of \u20ac1.6 million tax-free (2 \u00d7 \u20ac400,000 to each child) \u2013 and again after 10 years. Large real-estate fortunes can thus be passed on to children and grandchildren tax-free, slice by slice.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, gifts are no panacea. They presuppose a willingness to part with wealth already during one\u2019s lifetime. Trust in the recipients is needed \u2013 after all, once the gift is made, the children can dispose freely of it (unless one has contractually agreed certain restrictions or rights of reclaim). The cost risk also remains: should a donor become impoverished or in need of care, in the worst case they can no longer access the gifted wealth (unless one has agreed a right of re-transfer, for example for the care scenario).<\/p>\n<p>Gifts can avoid the compulsory share entirely only if action is taken early enough. One should plan well more than 10 years before the possible succession event to be certain \u2013 which is naturally difficult. Alternatively, one can work with compulsory-share waiver agreements: disinherited persons who voluntarily waive their compulsory share before a notary, in return for a settlement during one\u2019s lifetime. Such agreements, however, make sense only where the relationship is intact and both sides benefit.<\/p>\n<p>A special case: to reduce a spouse\u2019s compulsory share, some propose agreeing separation of property (G\u00fctertrennung) or choosing particular testamentary arrangements (keyword: the Berlin will with compulsory-share penalty clauses). This is less about real estate as such than about general inheritance-law structuring. But it should be mentioned that this too can form part of a comprehensive asset-protection strategy \u2013 particularly in blended families, where the second spouse often competes with the children from a first marriage for the estate.<\/p>\n<p>In summary: gifts are the simplest means of passing on wealth in a tax-optimised and compulsory-share-minimised way. Any property that no longer belongs to you cannot, in an emergency, be claimed by your creditors or persons entitled to a compulsory share. Early transfers in good times therefore pay off in bad times. But beware \u2013 do not act without a plan! Every gift should be accompanied by a notary and thought through with an eye to all eventualities (usufruct, right of residence, reversion clauses, safeguarding of the donor). And: anyone who gives everything away during their lifetime nonetheless needs a sufficient financial cushion of their own for their later years. Finding the right point of balance here is the art.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-1aa17ef elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"1aa17ef\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Relocation of Residence and International Inheritance Law<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-beeb570 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"beeb570\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>A more drastic, but thoroughly effective strategy is: get out of the line of fire before things turn dangerous. What is meant is the relocation of residence abroad. If someone wealthy in real estate takes their tax residence permanently outside Germany, they can escape certain forms of access by the German state. For example, a German capital levy on real-estate holdings would presumably burden all those who are taxable in Germany or own property here. If an owner moves abroad <em>and<\/em> ideally sells their German properties or transfers them to foreign structures, they could fall outside the scope of such a levy. At the very least, they would be more flexible in bringing their assets to safety.<\/p>\n<p>Practical example: suppose that in 2025 a capital levy of X% on domestic real-estate values were introduced for all residents of Germany. A German who had already officially moved to Dubai or Canada in 2024 might, in certain circumstances, be exempt from this levy \u2013 provided they no longer directly own any property in Germany. Should they still own some, the state would try to enforce the levy against the property itself. Here it could help to transfer the properties, say, to a foreign company, so that the foreign owner is less \u201ctangible\u201d to the German tax authorities (do not forget: the property as such remains in the German land register, so it cannot be wholly withdrawn from access, but it makes enforcement harder).<\/p>\n<p>In tax terms, emigration has considerable implications: once one is de-registered from Germany and has had no residence\/habitual abode here for at least five years, one is no longer subject to unlimited inheritance- and gift-tax liability. This means that if a German in exile dies after this period has elapsed, only their assets located in Germany are subject to German inheritance tax (limited tax liability) \u2013 the rest of the wealth abroad falls outside it. Anyone living abroad who sells their German properties before death (or transfers them abroad) can therefore reduce German inheritance tax to almost zero. In addition, by changing the applicable inheritance law one can override the compulsory-share rules. Since 2015, the EU Succession Regulation provides that, as a rule, the law of the testator\u2019s last habitual residence applies to the entire estate (unless one chooses one\u2019s national law by will). That is: if a German owner moves, for example, to Florida (USA) and dies there as a resident, then as a rule Florida inheritance law applies \u2013 a legal system that knows <em>no<\/em> compulsory share for adult children. Their properties in Germany would be inherited under US law (where applicable via estate splitting\/renvoi, but put simply), whereby unwelcome relatives can come away empty-handed. The same applies to a move to, say, England or Australia, where there is likewise no compulsory-share quota for distant relatives.<\/p>\n<p>But beware: a relocation of residence must be well considered. First, it is a considerable personal step \u2013 not everyone wishes to leave their homeland. Second, one must genuinely move the centre of one\u2019s vital interests <em>permanently<\/em>, otherwise one remains tax-bound to Germany (keywords: exit tax on GmbH shares, extended limited tax liability for up to 10 years after emigration for Germans moving to low-tax countries, etc.). It is thus not enough to go abroad merely \u201cfor show\u201d. Third, emigration does not protect against all eventualities: properties in Germany remain subject to German legislation. Should, for example, a compulsory mortgage be entered in the land register (as in 1952), it catches the Germans abroad as owners too. However, as noted, through certain restructurings (owner = foreign company) one could make enforcement harder and gain time.<\/p>\n<p>Many affluent families keep a Plan B in the drawer: if political extremes occur, it is off abroad. Some acquire a second passport or a permanent residence permit early on in a \u201csafe harbour\u201d (for example Switzerland, Singapore, New Zealand). Such backup options are part of a comprehensive asset-protection strategy. One hopes never to have to use them \u2013 but in case of doubt one could react quickly. However, one must be realistic: real estate itself cannot be taken along. What is safe abroad are more mobile assets \u2013 bank balances, securities, gold, crypto and so on. Here it is well worth bringing part of one\u2019s liquid wealth abroad (before capital controls arrive). An account in Liechtenstein or Singapore offers protection against German access, since \u2013 as mentioned \u2013 cross-border enforcement there is not straightforward. This at least secures your liquidity.<\/p>\n<p>In summary, a relocation of residence is the ultima ratio for shedding tax and legal constraints in particular. It is not, however, suitable for everyone and must be precisely timed. It is often more sensible to incorporate <em>elements<\/em> of this strategy (for example dual residence, partial assets abroad, going abroad already in retirement, etc.) than to give everything up prematurely. Do seek individual advice on this \u2013 the rules of international tax and inheritance law are complex.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-85c5014 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"85c5014\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Corporate Models and Intelligent Real-Estate Holding Structures<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-b79db97 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"b79db97\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>Instead of (or in addition to) a foundation or a trust, one can also work with company-law constructions to protect real-estate wealth. The idea behind it: the owner of the properties is no longer the private individual but a legal person (such as a GmbH, AG or a partnership) deliberately structured. This achieves various advantages:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Separation of liability: if properties sit within their own company, the owner is no longer directly liable with them for private debts. A creditor of the property owner cannot simply force the sale of the real estate at auction if it belongs to a GmbH \u2013 they would have to look to the GmbH\u2019s shares, and those are, where applicable, in turn protected or pledged elsewhere.<\/li>\n<li>Tax optimisation: within corporations, different tax rates apply (corporation tax), and on the sale of properties by corporations the partial-income method may apply (where held as private assets) or other rules. Above all, however, a holding structure allows sales to be arranged in a tax-favoured way (keywords: share deals, the 95% rules \u2013 although legislative changes in 2023 have narrowed the loopholes here).<\/li>\n<li>Inheritance tax: the transfer of company shares sometimes offers reliefs (for example business-assets privileges, provided it is not purely administrative assets, which can, however, be difficult for pure property companies). Nonetheless, family companies can be set up so that gifts of shares to children are tax-favoured. Moreover, shares can be split up and transferred bit by bit, which would not be possible in this way with a single property.<\/li>\n<li>Flexibility and external financing: a property GmbH can more easily take out loans, bring in participations or sell parts of the portfolio without the entire structure being affected at once. The company acts as a buffer between owner and property.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A particularly popular form among families is the GmbH &amp; Co. KG as a real-estate holding. Here, for example, the family contributes its properties to a KG; the general partner is a GmbH (often a family GmbH), the limited partners are the family members. The ongoing income can thus be distributed, losses used for tax where applicable, and asset succession steered through amendments to the partnership agreement (for example automatic succession of descendants as limited partners). The shares in the KG or GmbH can be transferred, bequeathed or contributed to a foundation relatively easily.<\/p>\n<p>How exactly does a company protect against access? Imagine a looming burden-sharing levy intended to skim off private real-estate wealth. If your properties belong to a foreign corporation, which in turn belongs to you, the German legislator might try to impose a levy on you based on the company\u2019s value \u2013 but this is more complicated than simply accessing properties directly in the land register. In the worst case, the levy would be placed on the properties themselves (land-register entry), but then the company is the debtor, not you personally. Should one not pay, the state would have to enforce against the foreign company, which (similarly to assets abroad) comes with hurdles. Of course, this is no absolute protection \u2013 a compulsory mortgage in the land register ultimately hurts the company just as much. But it could bring temporal advantages and open up possible loopholes (perhaps the levy applies only to residents?). One cannot know for certain, but many asset-protection strategists rely on such \u201clegal firewalling\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Another field is insurance-wrapper-type models: here properties are sold and the proceeds invested in special insurance solutions (often abroad) that are protected from attachment. This, however, goes beyond our topic and concerns liquid assets rather than real estate.<\/p>\n<p>In summary: transferring properties into corporate structures \u2013 whether a German family company or a foreign holding \u2013 can manage the wealth more professionally and offers certain protective mechanisms. It is not, however, complete protection against state measures, rather an impediment. In combination with other strategies in particular (a foundation holding company shares; the owner emigrates and retains only the foreign holding), this approach develops great effect. Here too, it is important: one should not take such steps without tax and legal expertise. Keywords such as exit tax, real-estate transfer tax on restructuring (transfers of more than 90% of shares trigger real-estate transfer tax), and management abroad (proof of substance) show that pitfalls lurk. But in the hands of an experienced adviser, a tailored corporate solution can achieve a great deal.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-710e5bc elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"710e5bc\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Conclusion: Asset Protection Is a Duty \u2013 Professional Advice Indispensable<\/h2>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-b94726b elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"b94726b\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<p>\u201cProperty entails obligations\u201d \u2013 this constitutional principle is becoming increasingly tangible for affluent property owners. The obligation should not, however, be understood one-sidedly as a debt owed to the state, society or the family. It also entails the responsibility to protect and preserve one\u2019s own wealth. In view of the risks outlined \u2013 from possible expropriations to tax-driven squeezing \u2013 it is <em>not scaremongering<\/em> to take precautions early. Asset protection is no disgrace, but prudent foresight.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d5800da elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d5800da\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">The key takeaways once more in brief:<\/h3>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8d2c893 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"8d2c893\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n<ul>\n<li>Identify risks: political initiatives (for example a burden-sharing levy) and legislative changes (inheritance-tax reform, compulsory share) can threaten your real-estate wealth. Anyone who ignores them acts negligently.<\/li>\n<li>Combine measures: a mix of strategies \u2013 foundation, trust, gifts, usufruct, foreign structure and, where applicable, relocation of residence \u2013 offers the best protection. Each measure alone has gaps; together they form a dense net.<\/li>\n<li>Act early: do not wait until laws are passed. Most arrangements (foundation, anticipated succession, etc.) work only if implemented in good time. Under time pressure, the options shrink dramatically.<\/li>\n<li>Heed individuality: there is no universal solution. Every family fortune is differently situated. Do not let yourself be talked into a one-size-fits-all template; instead, develop <em>your<\/em> master plan with experts.<\/li>\n<li>Create legal certainty: crucially \u2013 it cannot be done without specialist legal and tax advice. Amateurish constructions do not hold up in an emergency and can be worse than nothing. Avoid uncoordinated actions (for example a hasty emigration or ill-considered gifts) that ultimately do more harm than good.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>At the end of this overview, it should be emphasised: asset protection is a matter of trust. In public there may be debates driven by envy, but you as a responsible owner may and must secure your possessions \u2013 for yourself and your heirs. Reputable and legal means are available to you for this, as we have explained. Yet no advisory article can replace personal advice. Every case has its snares, whether in the detail of compulsory-share law or in cross-border tax questions.<\/p>\n<p>Dr. Johannes Fiala, with decades of experience as a strategic adviser on asset protection, has guided numerous wealthy families through precisely such solutions. As an attorney and independent adviser, he knows the levers to build a coherent overall concept from the building blocks described \u2013 discreet, tailored and legally secure. If you have gained the impression that your real-estate wealth stands unprotected in the storm, do not hesitate to seek competent support. The legal tools are ready; one need only deploy them knowledgeably.<\/p>\n<p>Protect your real-estate wealth before someone else does \u2013 be it the state, the tax office or unwanted heirs. With foresight, planning and professional help, you can ensure that your life\u2019s work is preserved. The times may be uncertain, but with the right strategy your property remains <em>your<\/em> home \u2013 and your wealth <em>your<\/em> property. Now is the right time to act. For asset protection is not a panic reaction but an expression of responsibility for what one has created. Act while you still can. Your real-estate wealth will thank you for it.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In uncertain times, many affluent property owners ask how to protect their assets against state access and creeping expropriation. Whether moves to nationalise large housing companies, debate over a new burden-sharing levy from 2025, or far-reaching tax reforms \u2013 the risks keep mounting. Added to this are compulsory-share claims from disinherited relatives and rising inheritance taxes that can severely erode wealth built up over [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":30656,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","rank_math_focus_keyword":"","rank_math_description":"","rank_math_title":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-unkategorisiert"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30658"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30658\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30666,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30658\/revisions\/30666"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30656"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fiala.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}