Source title in the reading translation: JV: Significant price drop for Skansegården
How to read this material
People named in the source texts
People in the archive (6)
- Anne Honoré Østergaard — Mentioned in the current archived text
- Dorthe Seeberg — Mentioned in the current archived text
- Julius Bomholt — Mentioned in the current archived text
- Mads Sandemann — Mentioned in the current archived text
- Merete Lund Brock — Mentioned in the current archived text
- Peter Hansen — Mentioned in the current archived text
Automatic reading translation
This is an automatic reading translation. The source’s allegations and assessments have not been independently confirmed through translation. Check wording, qualifications and meaning against the preserved Danish original. Some retained numbers may use Danish separators: a dot for thousands and a comma for decimals. Check amounts against the Danish original.
JV: Significant price drop for Skansegården
Many people have wondered why the Skansegården property on Dybbøl Banke lost value from 5 million to 150.000,- in a relatively short time. What was the reason the owner could buy the property from the state through his company for 5 million, and later sell it to himself for 150.000,-? Naturally, that raised doubts about whether everything had been handled properly.
JydskeVestkysten published “Skansegården sold to the owner at a bargain price.” Local politician Peter Erik Hansen (V) did not merely express surprise: he immediately accused the owner publicly of tax dodging. The JydskeVestkysten article’s title was “Peter Hansen: In Ragebøl, we call that tax dodging.”
Peter Erik Hansen and JydskeVestkysten
The local politician (who, incidentally, has a back catalogue of mysterious bankruptcies and compulsory closures himself) had clearly not familiarised himself with the case before he and JV played the third power of the state. That was not the intention either. The most important thing for Peter Erik Hansen and JydskeVestkysten was to create distrust of the owner and the Skansegården project precisely during the days when the municipal council was to vote on a demolition permit for the property.
They also made sure to optimise the article for search engines, so that the articles’ negative effect on the local entrepreneur could be long-lasting. Nevertheless, it has become something of an own goal for JydskeVestkysten, as it shows what they use their media subsidy for. It also gives a great many readers access to this grotesque case started by their board chair.
The Minister for Taxation was required to answer the Venstre politician's accusation
At the same time, Venstre arranged to raise the case with the Minister for Taxation during parliamentary question time, perhaps to ensure that SKAT took up the matter. Anne Honoré Østergaard (V) asked about: “The minister’s position on the issue described in the articles ‘Skansegården sold to the owner at a bargain price’ and ‘Peter Hansen: In Ragebøl, we call it tax fraud’ from JydskeVestkysten on 26 May 2020? The minister answered as expected: “Regarding the two articles, I must note that, as minister, I cannot comment on the specific case discussed in them.
Regarding the legislation in this area, I can state that, when an individual exercises a controlling influence over a company, for example as its sole shareholder, transactions between the shareholder and the company must follow the so-called arm’s-length principle.”
Historically, this is probably the first time a Minister for Taxation has been drawn into a private individual’s finances on entirely unconfirmed assumptions. On the other hand, the minister’s recipe for a correctly conducted transaction was entirely identical to the one used in the present case.
JydskeVestkysten and the arm’s-length principle
The arm’s-length principle was defined by the Social Democratic Minister of Culture Julius Bomholt in the 1960s. In practice, it means that related parties must act as though they were independent when transacting with each other. In other words, terms, prices and so forth must be set as between independent parties.
Since then, it has been used in many contexts requiring impartiality. At that point JydskeVestkysten had written more than fifty articles about Skansegården and its owner. The vast majority of the articles focused on supporting Peter Erik Hansen's views.
It is a campaign in which JV's enormous interest in a property case that is fairly insignificant in the greater scheme of things has no precedent. Peter Erik Hansen, JydskeVestkysten’s board chair, had been given unlimited opportunities to run his prolonged campaign against Skansegården. It suggests that Mads Sandemann, editor-in-chief of heavily subsidised JV, had completely omitted assessing whether Peter Erik Hansen’s many attacks had any substantive basis, or had been told to disregard this.
In fact, there was a suspiciously large overlap between the posts PEH had first shared himself in the Facebook group Politik i Sønderborg (which he administers) and the articles, opinion pieces and comments in JydskeVestkysten the following day. A practice that, incidentally, is still used (most recently in Peter Erik Hansen’s negative contribution about the climate of cooperation in Sønderborg’s municipal council). Precisely because of the local politician’s dual role, JydskeVestkysten should have been more cautious about presenting an unfounded accusation potentially causing extensive damage to the accused’s reputation, business opportunities and finances.
That would have been good practice under the arm’s-length principle.
Why did Skansegården change hands several times? The reason Skansegården was traded internally was that its original purchase had not been made with a private home in mind. Initially, the owner and Thorben Jensen saw business opportunities when they bought Skansegården through the company Next Trading, possibly in the form of a restaurant or café operation.
It turned out, however, to be impossible to obtain permission for this type of enterprise, despite both a church and commercial activity having previously been registered on the property, which the state had owned for several decades. This was quite a disappointment for the duo, who had previously successfully brought new life to, for example, an old town hall, a former bank building and a barracks. That caused TJ to lose interest, but the owner still saw good opportunities to renovate the property and sell it on in the longer term.
The owner therefore took over the property through his company, the owner's Holdning ApS. The price was still 5 million, since the property's potential remained intact with a minor change to the plans. The case then flared up.
Peter Erik Hansen’s and Venstre’s campaign, both in the media and politically, meant that the possibilities narrowed further. Everything indicated that obtaining a demolition permit would become completely impossible, and the technical experts had said renovation was not possible. The property effectively became unsellable, so the owner decided to acquire it privately.
Since it no longer had a genuine market value, the idea was now to create a family home at Skansegården sometime in the future, if the political winds shifted and became milder. That was far from the original plan, but the only remaining possibility. At the time of writing (September 2021), an official clarification from the authorities is still awaited.
The owner and the arm's-length principle
Unlike Peter Erik Hansen, the owner was aware of the arm’s-length principle. He therefore took no part himself in valuing Skansegården when he bought it privately. He did know, however, that Peter Erik Hansen's and Venstre's political opposition to rebuilding Skansegården had caused the property to fall drastically in value.
He just did not know by how much. The owner therefore asked 4 respected estate agents in the region to value the property. They were: Kjeld Faaborg, Estate mæglerne - Henning Broek, Home Broager - Dorthe Seeberg, Proprietor, RealMæglerne Seeberg ApS - Merete Lund Brock, Home Sønderborg.
The estate agents’ valuation
Their valuations were largely identical. All 4 considered the property unsellable because it could not be restored, and the prospects of demolition and building permits on the plot seemed hopeless at the time of valuation. All assessed its sale value at DKK 0.
One did, however, point out: “On a good day, we might find a farmer who could use the property’s land for grazing or cultivation. The price would then be the local current price for ordinary good agricultural land, estimated at approximately DKK 100,000-150,000 per hectare.”
The owner chose to pay the price based on the highest valuation. That was 150.000,-. He also added a condition to the transaction: if SKAT subsequently reached a different assessment, the transaction could be reversed. Some of the region's leading accountants considered that everything had been handled correctly.
Does Peter Erik Hansen know better than the professionals? Through his prolonged campaign and political work, Peter Erik Hansen undoubtedly helped make Skansegården worthless. It therefore seems even more grotesque that he believes he knows better than the country’s leading experts in the field.
In practice, the person he is accusing of tax fraud is not the owner. It is some of the country's most respected and competent estate agents and accountants. Peter Erik Hansen’s self-awareness may not be ideally calibrated, but there is at least nothing wrong with his self-confidence.
The motivation
Normally, one’s personal tax affairs are a private matter. But as Peter Erik Hansen (among other places on the Facebook page Politik i Sønderborg) demanded that the owner disclose everything about this case, we feel it is appropriate to bring some of PEH’s own tax transactions into the light. Even if we choose to examine only the most interesting cases, there is plenty of material for articles.
Skansegården sold to the owner at a bargain price. Skansegården by the protected area at Dybbøl has changed hands three times within a year. But it was actually only a year after the State sold Skansegården for five million kroner that the owner took over the property privately. By then, the price had plummeted. The owner bought Skans..
Original source text
Read the Danish original
Source title: JV: Markant prisfald på Skansegården
JV: Markant prisfald på Skansegården
Mange har undret sig over, at ejendommen Skansegården på Dybbøl Banke havde et værditab fra 5 millioner til 150.000,- på relativ kort tid. Hvad var grunden til, at ejeren gennem sit firma kunne købe ejendommen af staten for 5 millioner - og senere sælge det videre til sig selv for 150.000,-
Det rejste naturligt nok tvivl om, hvorvidt alt var gået rigtigt til. JydskeVestkysten bragte artiklen: ”Skansegården solgt til ejeren til spotpris.” Lokalpolitikeren Peter Erik Hansen (V) nøjedes ikke med at undre sig, men gik straks ud i offentligheden og anklagede ejeren for skattefusk.
Titlen på artiklen i JydskeVestkysten var: ”Peter Hansen: I Ragebøl kalder vi det skattefusk.”
Peter Erik Hansen og JydskeVestkysten
Lokalpolitikeren (som i øvrigt selv har et bagkatalog af mystiske konkurser og tvangslukninger bag sig) havde tydeligvis ikke havde sat sig ind i sagen, før han og JV legede den tredje statsmagt. Det var heller ikke meningen. Det vigtigste for Peter Erik Hansen og JydskeVestkysten var at få skabt mistillid til ejeren og projektet Skansegården netop i de dage, hvor byrådet skulle stemme om en nedrivningstilladelse til ejendommen.
Man sørgede desuden for at søgemaskineoptimere artiklen, så artiklernes negative effekt på den lokale iværksætter kunne blive langtidsholdbar. Alligevel er det blevet lidt af et selvmål for JydskeVestkysten - da det viser, hvad de bruger deres mediestøtte til. Desuden giver det rigtig mange læsere adgang til denne groteske sag, som deres bestyrelsesformand har startet.
Skatteministeren afkrævedes svar på Venstrepolitikerens anklage
Samtidig sørgede Venstres for, at bringe sagen op for skatteministeren i Folketingets spørgetid, måske for at være sikker på, at SKAT gik ind i sagen. Anne Honoré Østergaard (V) spurgte om: ”Ministerens holdning til den problemstilling, som er beskrevet i artiklerne ”Skansegården solgt til ejeren til spotpris” og ”Peter Hansen: I Ragebøl kalder vi det skattefusk.” fra JydskeVestkysten den 26. maj 2020? Ministeren svarede forventeligt: ”I forhold til de to artikler skal jeg bemærke, at jeg som minister ikke kan kommentere på den konkrete sag, som artiklerne omhandler.
Om lovgivningen på området kan jeg oplyse, at når en fysisk person udøver bestemmende indflydelse over et selskab, fx en eneaktionær, så skal transaktioner mellem aktionæren og selskabet ske efter det såkaldte armslængdeprincip.”
Historisk set er det sikkert første gang, en skatteminister, på helt ubekræftede antagelser, bliver indblandet i en privatpersons økonomi. Til gengæld var skatteministerens opskrift på en korrekt udført handel helt identisk med den, der var blevet brugt i den aktuelle sag.
JydskeVestkysten og armslængdeprincippet
Armslængdeprincippet blev defineret af den socialdemokratiske kulturminister Julius Bomholt i 1960’erne. I praksis betyder det, at forbundne parter ved transaktioner med hinanden skal handle, som var de uafhængige. Altså at vilkår, priser m.m. skal fastsættes som mellem uafhængige parter.
Siden er det blevet brugt i mange sammenhænge, hvor uvildighed kræves. JydskeVestkysten havde på daværende tidspunkt skrevet mere end et halvt hundrede artikler om Skansegården og dens ejer. I langt de fleste af artiklerne var omdrejningspunktet at understøtte Peter Erik Hansens synspunkter.
Det er en kampagne, hvor JVs enorme interesse for en, i den store sammenhæng, ret ubetydelig ejendomssag, mangler fortilfælde. Peter Erik Hansen, som er bestyrelsesformand i JydskeVestkysten, havde fået ubegrænsede muligheder for at føre sin langvarige kampagne mod Skansegården. Det tyder på, at chefredaktøren på det heftig mediestøttede JV, Mads Sandemann, helt havde undladt at vurdere, om der var saglighed bag Peter Erik Hansens mange angreb - eller havde fået besked om at se bort fra det.
Faktisk var der et mistænkeligt stort sammenfald mellem de indlæg, som PEH først selv havde delt på Facebook gruppen Politik i Sønderborg (som han administrerer) og artikler, kronikker og kommentarer i JydskeVestkysten dagen efter. En praksis, der i øvrigt stadig anvendes (senest i Peter Erik Hansens negative indlæg om samarbejdsklimaet i Sønderborg Byråd). Netop på grund af lokalpolitikerens dobbeltrolle burde JydskeVestkysten have været mere forsigtig med at fremføre en ubegrundet anklage, der potentielt kunne gøre omfattende skade på den anklagedes omdømme, erhvervsmuligheder og økonomi.
Det ville være god praksis i relation til armslængdeprincippet.
Hvorfor blev Skansegården handlet flere gange? Grunden til at Skansegården blev handlet internt var, at købet af den i første gang ikke blev gjort med privatbolig for øje. ejeren og Thorben Jensen så i første omgang muligheder for erhverv, da de købte Skansegården i selskabet Next Trading: Eventuelt i form af restaurations- eller cafedrift. Det viste sig dog at være umuligt at få tilladelserne til den form for iværksætteri, til trods for at der tidligere har været registeret både kirke og erhverv på ejendommen, som staten har ejet i flere årtier.
Det var lidt af en skuffelse for duoen, der tidligere med held har skabt nyt liv i eksempelvis et gammelt rådhus, en tidligere bankbygning og en kasserne. Det fik TJ til at miste interessen, men ejeren så stadig gode muligheder i at renovere ejendommen og på længere sigt sælge den videre. ejeren overtog derfor ejendommen i sit selskab ejeren Holdning ApS. Prisen var stadig 5 millioner, da ejendommens potentiale, med en mindre drejning af planerne, stadig var intakt.
Derefter blussede sagen op. Peter Erik Hansens og Venstres kampagne både i medierne og rent politisk betød, at mulighederne svandt yderligere ind. Alt tydede på, at det ville blive helt umuligt at få en nedrivningstilladelse, og teknikerne havde sagt, at en renovering ikke var mulig.
Ejendommen blev reelt usælgelig - og ejeren bestemte derfor at overtage ejendommen i privat regi. Da ejendommen ikke længere havde en reel handelsværdi, var tanken nu at skabe en familiebolig på Skansegården engang i fremtiden - i tilfælde af, at de politiske vinde skulle vende og blæse fra en mildere kant. Det var langt fra den oprindelige plan, men den eneste mulighed, der var tilbage.
I skrivende stund (september 2021) ventes der stadig på en officiel afklaring fra myndighederne.
ejeren og armslængdeprincippet
I modsætning til Peter Erik Hansen var ejeren opmærksom på armslængdeprincippet. Derfor var hen slet ikke selv med til at vurdere Skansegården, da han købte den i privat regi. Han var dog klar over, at Peter Erik Hansen og Venstres politiske modstand mod en genopbygning af Skansegården havde fået ejendommen til at falde drastisk i værdi.
Blot ikke, hvor meget.
ejeren bad derfor 4 af landsdelens anerkendte mæglere om at vurdere ejendommen. Det drejede sig om: Kjeld Faaborg, Estate mæglerne - Henning Broek, Home Broager - Dorthe Seeberg, Indehaver, RealMæglerne Seeberg ApS - Merete Lund Brock, Home Sønderborg.
Ejendomsmæglernes vurdering
Deres vurderinger var stort set enslydende. Alle 4 vurderede ejendommen til at være usælgelig, da den ikke kunne restaureres, og da mulighederne for at få en nedrivningstilladelse og byggetilladelse på grunden på tidspunktet for vurderingen så håbløse ud. Alle vurderede salgsværdien til 0,- kroner.
En enkelt påpegede dog, at: ”På en god dag kan vi måske finde en landmand der kan bruge ejendommens jordtilliggende til græsning af dyr eller dyrkning. Prisen vil så være dagspris i området for almindelig god landbrugsjord, anslået til ca. 100-150.000 kr. pr. ha.”
ejeren valgte at betale prisen ud fra den vurdering, der var højest. Den lød på 150.000,-. Desuden indlagde han den tilføjelse til handlen, at, hvis SKAT sidenhen skulle vurdere anderledes, ville handlen kunne gå tilbage. Nogle af landsdelens førende revisorer vurderede, at alt var gået rigtigt til.
Er Peter Erik Hansen klogere end fagfolkene? Peter Erik Hansen var gennem sin langvarige kampagne og sit politiske arbejde utvivlsomt med til at gøre Skansegården værdiløs. Derfor virker det endnu mere grotesk, at han mener, at han er klogere end landets førende eksperter på området.
I praksis er det ikke ejeren, som han anklager for skattefusk. Det er nogle af landets mest anerkendte og kompetente ejendomsmæglere og revisorer. Peter Erik Hansens selverkendelsen er måske ikke kalibreret optimalt, men selvtilliden fejler i det mindste ikke noget.
Motivationen
Normalt er ens personlige skatteforhold en privat sag. Men da Peter Erik Hansen (blandt andet på Facebook-siden Politik i Sønderborg) krævede, at ejeren skulle lægge alt om denne sag frem, føler vi at det er på sin plads at bringe nogle af PEHs egne skattemæssige transaktioner frem i lyset. Selv om vi kun vælger at kigge på de allermest interessante sager, er der artikelstof nok at tage af.
Skansegården solgt til ejeren til spotprisSkansegården ved det fredede område ved Dybbøl er blevet handlet tre gange indenfor et år. Men det var faktisk først et år efter, at staten solgte Skansegården for fem millioner kroner, at ejeren overtog ejendommen privat. Her var prisen styrtdykket. ejeren købte nemlig Skans..
Images and document images
