# Swedish: 1,33 av marknadsvärdet fastställt av värderingsman

#### Gavril

##### Senior Member
Hi again,

An excerpt from a deed of gift wherein parents transfer a share of real estate property to their heir:

Om [mottagaren] vill överlåta sin del av gåvan till annan än bröstarvinge, är hon skyldig att hembjuda sin andel till övriga delägare. Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet fastställt av värderingsman.

I don't understand how the highlighted part fits into this.

To get the required price, it seems that we need to multiply

(A) the gift recipient's share of the property's taxation value
times
(B) the number 1.33

How is "the market value as confirmed by an assessor" functioning in this calculation?

(I've never formally learned how to do arithmetic in Swedish, so perhaps I'm missing something elementary here.)

Tak for jeres hjælp,
Gavril

• Hmm... that's not how I would parse it I think.

hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet (fastställt av värderingsman.)

So if the person's share is one fourth and the market value is 500,000, then the formula would be 0.25 x (1,33 x 500,000). In other words it looks like the market value is increased by 33% for the purpose of the rest of the calculation.

I could be wrong of course, but it's the only way I can make that last part make sense (the one you're asking about). It's a bit unclear perhaps because it looks to me as if it's basically instructing you to multiply twice, just that the second time it's written using "av". I would normally expect a percentage followed by "av", so it could maybe have been written as "133% av marknadsvärdet".

Thanks.

Is it an established pattern to use "av" for multiplication -- i.e. as the equivalent of "times" in English -- even if it's not the most common option for this?

There are two separate values involved here, the 'taxeringsvärde' (TV) and the 'marknadsvärde' (MV). The TV is the value of a property set by the Swedish tax office, and that sum is supposed to correspond to 75% of the MV, which is how much a buyer is expected to pay for a property.
See: Taxeringsvärde – vi reder ut
The TV is set every third or sixth year, while the MV is the price today, so if the prices for a property in a certain area have gone up much since the last time a TV was set, the difference between TV and MV can be much more than the 25% it's expected to be.

For example: TV - 400,000 and MV 750,000 and 4 delägare.
1,33 * 750,000 = 997,500
0,25 * 997,500 = 249,375
0,25 * 400,000 = 100,000
249,375 - 100,000 = 149,375 in 'hembud'

TV 400,000 and MV 500,000 and 4 delägare
1,33 * 500,000 = 665,000
0,25 * 665,000 = 166,250
166,250 - 100,000 = 66,250 in 'hembud'
If my understanding and calculations are correct.

However, I don't understand how the original quoted sentence is equivalent to what you're saying.

Namely:

1) What word/phrase in the sentence conveys the information "249,375 - 100,000"?
(I.e., the subtraction operation on these values, whatever the specific quantities might be.)

2) "1,33 av marknadsvärdet" = "1,33 * MV"?
In other words, is it normal to use "av" as a multiplying operator, like "times" in English?
(Thus far I'm only familiar with "med" in this role.)

Last edited:

However, I don't understand how the original quoted sentence is equivalent to what you're saying.

Namely:

1) What word/phrase in the sentence conveys the information "249,375 - 100,000"?
(I.e., the subtraction operation on these values, whatever the specific quantities might be.)

None, in my view. I also wonder what the intent is of this rule in this context. I think we can look at the various options of what the 'bid' should be under different rules:

100,000 (1/4 TV)
125,000 (1/4 MV)
166,250 (my formula)
66,250 (Autumn's formula)

There's a fairly big discrepancy between those numbers. Clearly there is a reason to adjust the value away from 100k and perhaps we can tease out the answer by considering why the value should be higher or lower.. (?)

Please note that using Autumn's formula the fraction of the resulting price to be offered changes quite a bit depending on the market value:

MV=500k gave 66,250 in 'hembud', roughly 13%
MV=750k gave 149,375 in 'hembud', roughly 20%
MV=1m gives 232,500 in 'hembud, roughly 23%
MV=2m gives 565,500 in 'hembud, roughly 28%

So relative to the market value the "discount" (as a percentage) the offered party is getting decreases the higher the MV is.
Without that last subtraction the value remains intact as a fraction .

2) "1.33 av marknadsvärdet" = "1,33 * MV"
In other words, is it normal to use "av" as a multiplying operator, like "times" in English?
(Thus far I'm only familiar with "med" in this role.)

Like I wrote, I think it's likely more common to use a percentage with the word "av" rather than "1.33". Since both me and AutumnOwl interpreted the word the same I think we likely understand its meaning, but like I said, I'd have expected it to be a percentage with "av" or "1,33" with "multiplicerat med".

I did a search yesterday and found few combinations of the non-percentage number combined with "av" and far more using "% av".

I could be wrong though.

1) What word/phrase in the sentence conveys the information "249,375 - 100,000"?
(I.e., the subtraction operation on these values, whatever the specific quantities might be.)
My thought was that if one of the shareholders sells their share to the other shareholders of the property the 'taxeringsvärdet', then that value won't be affected, it stays at 400,000 until the next evaluation. The TV rules the taxation of the property, and whether it's divided between three or four people doesn't change that sum.

So in my calculations the 149,375 is the sum the remaining three shareholders would have to pay to buy out the fourth, if they don't accept that someone else get a part of the property.

My thought was that if one of the shareholders sells their share to the other shareholders of the property the 'taxeringsvärdet', then that value won't be affected, it stays at 400,000 until the next evaluation. The TV rules the taxation of the property, and whether it's divided between three or four people doesn't change that sum.

So in my calculations the 149,375 is the sum the remaining three shareholders would have to pay to buy out the fourth, if they don't accept that someone else get a part of the property.

Thank you for answering, but I'm afraid I don't follow.

You might be 100% correct about how this process actually works, but how does the original Swedish sentence (below) convey what you wrote above? :

Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet fastställt av värderingsman.

If we interpret av as a multiplier, this would seem to be saying that the hembud price is "[the shareholder's share] * [the property's taxation value] * 1.33 * [the established market value]".

I don't see any subtraction or difference in the mix.

Thanks/regards,
Gavril

PS.
Did you meant to write "... at the 'taxeringsvärdet'"?

[taps microphone] "Is this thing on?"

My thought was that if one of the shareholders sells their share to the other shareholders of the property the 'taxeringsvärdet', then that value won't be affected, it stays at 400,000 until the next evaluation. The TV rules the taxation of the property, and whether it's divided between three or four people doesn't change that sum.

So in my calculations the 149,375 is the sum the remaining three shareholders would have to pay to buy out the fourth, if they don't accept that someone else get a part of the property.

But why are you subtracting 100,000? That's what the question was. I don't see that in the text either.

If we interpret av as a multiplier, this would seem to be saying that the hembud price is "[the shareholder's share] * [the property's taxation value] * 1.33 * [the established market value]".

There's a subtle difference between the two instances of "av" in the sentence:

hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet (fastställt av värderingsman.)

When you precede "av" with "del" it functions as "share of", and when you precede it with a percentage it functions as "percent of". This is why we used a hypothetical amount of "owners" that share this property. With four people the person's share of the property will be 25%.

The word "del" is really the colloquial form of "andel" (share).

I don't see any subtraction or difference in the mix.

I still don't either.

Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet fastställt av värderingsman.

The quoted sentence appears to be the result of a misunderstanding on the part of whomever drafted the deed. The text has been copied from a model provided as Annex 1 (“BILAGA 1: GÅVOBREV”) in a document published by the organisation Villaägarna in 2012, see here.

In that document, the sentence reads as follows:
Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens / taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 / marknadsvärde fastställt av värderingsman.

In the deed, one slash has been removed, the other has been replaced with “av”, and the article has been added to the word “marknadsvärde”, all in an attempt to make the sentence work as it stands.

The two slashes are there, however, to indicate that the word “fastighetens” should be followed by either “taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33” or “marknadsvärde fastställt av värderingsman”. The alternative not chosen should be stricken, giving either of the two following sentences:
1. Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33.
2. Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens marknadsvärde fastställt av värderingsman.
The logic behind this is the one already mentioned by AutumnOwl, namely that the taxeringsvärde is supposed to correspond to 75 percent of the marknadsvärde. Multiplying the taxeringsvärde by 1.33 (option 1) therefore results in the presumed market price, while having the property assessed (option 2) is a way of ascertaining the actual market price.

Ok, that makes more sense. Incredibly poorly (re)written in my opinion.

In the deed, one slash has been removed, the other has been replaced with “av”, and the article has been added to the word “marknadsvärde”, all in an attempt to make the sentence work as it stands.

The two slashes are there, however, to indicate that the word “fastighetens” should be followed by either “taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33” or “marknadsvärde fastställt av värderingsman”.

Takk, S.!

By the way, is it correct Swedish punctuation to use the two slashes in this way, so that "/ X / Y" = "either X or Y"?

In English, the meaning "or" is conveyed by the second slash alone. If we include both slashes, it significantly changes the meaning (in this case, it would render the sentence completely incoherent).

Last edited:
By the way, is it correct Swedish punctuation to use the two slashes in this way, so that "/ X / Y" = "either X or Y"?
No, I think that’s completely non-standard. I can see why the first slash is there, namely to show where the first alternative begins, but the whole thing still ends up being confusing.

In English, the meaning "or" is conveyed by the second slash alone.
It’s the same in Swedish, the way I see it.

If we include both slashes, it significantly changes the meaning (in this case, it would render the sentence completely incoherent).
Exactly; I think the very source of the confusion is the use of misleading punctuation.

I think that the litteral meaning of the original text : " Om [mottagaren] vill överlåta sin del av gåvan till annan än bröstarvinge, är hon skyldig att hembjuda sin andel till övriga delägare. Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet fastställt av värderingsman." is as follows:
Price of the property's part to be used in the process (P) is to be calculated using the formula: P= T x M x 1.33 where T is taxation value, and M is the market value.
If used in this way you will get an extremely high amount of money, for example:
P= 400 000 x 500 000 x 1,33 = 266 000 000 000 kronor (266 billion). I presume, that the quoted text must be wrong.

I think that the litteral meaning of the original text : " Om [mottagaren] vill överlåta sin del av gåvan till annan än bröstarvinge, är hon skyldig att hembjuda sin andel till övriga delägare. Hembudet ska ske till ett pris motsvarande hembjudande delägarens del av fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet fastställt av värderingsman." is as follows:
Price of the property's part to be used in the process (P) is to be calculated using the formula: P= T x M x 1.33 where T is taxation value, and M is the market value.
If used in this way you will get an extremely high amount of money, for example:
P= 400 000 x 500 000 x 1,33 = 266 000 000 000 kronor (266 billion). I presume, that the quoted text must be wrong.
As the [mottagare] owns only one "andel" of the property, shouldn't the T and M in the calculation be divided with the number of "delägare"? A "delägare" can only sell what they themself owns, not the whole property.

As the [mottagare] owns only one "andel" of the property, shouldn't the T and M in the calculation be divided with the number of "delägare"? A "delägare" can only sell what they themself owns, not the whole property.
Not in my formula. I have already used the value of the part to be tranferred/sold.
I have, however, hoped that somebody would react to the (in my opinion mistaken) proposal tu multiplicate the two values of T and M, which gives an absurd result. Reading the original text, however, makes me believe, that this is what is to be understood from the text: "fastighetens taxeringsvärde multiplicerat med 1,33 av marknadsvärdet fastställt av värderingsman."
What is your proposal of solving this?

I think Segorian provided a likely solution to this question above: the quoted sentence is an error, due to incorrect copying of the model deed.

The source texts are several short deeds of gift (gåvobrev) wherein a property is divided up among a family's heirs, and they follow a more-or-less identical formula. The original error seems to have been propagated to all of them.

I think Segorian provided a likely solution to this question above: the quoted sentence is an error, due to incorrect copying of the model deed.

The source texts are several short deeds of gift (gåvobrev) wherein a property is divided up among a family's heirs, and they follow a more-or-less identical formula. The original error seems to have been propagated to all of them.
So the problem is solved.