Legal analysis: buying a house under one's name is a contractual act. 1. If the house bought and sold under the house purchase contract is an ordinary commercial house, it is generally recognized that the house purchase contract under the house purchase contract is valid. 2. If the house purchased under the guise of a house purchase contract is a special house such as affordable housing, it is generally recognized that the house purchase contract under the guise of a house is invalid. Previously, the government and banks implemented differentiated loan policies and tax policies for the first suite and the second suite. For the first suite, the minimum down payment ratio is 20% and the loan interest rate is 15%. The deed tax is levied at 1% or 1.5% of the total house price, while for the second apartment (unsettled housing loan), the down payment is 40%, the loan interest rate rises 10%, and the deed tax is 65438+. Some property buyers clearly have a house under their name, but in order to enjoy the preferential interest rate and deed tax of the first home loan, they want to find relatives or friends who have no house and no loan under their names to buy a house together or in the name of others, and they want to bind the nominal property buyers with the actual investors with a paper agreement. The agreement signed under the pretext of buying a house is neither valid nor notarized. The notary pointed out that the agreement signed privately by the nominal purchaser and the actual investor is not protected by law and cannot be notarized. According to the property law of our country, the ownership of real estate is subject to the registration of real estate, and whoever registers the real estate is the owner of the house. The "Anonymous House Purchase Agreement" signed by the parties in order to enjoy the preferential loan interest rate and evade the national tax policy is invalid because it violates the law and harms the public interests. Article 52 of China's "Contract Law" clearly stipulates that "a contract is invalid under any of the following circumstances: (1) one party concludes a contract by means of fraud or coercion, which harms the interests of the state; (2) Malicious collusion that harms the interests of the state, the collective or a third party; (3) Covering up illegal purposes in a legal form; (4) damaging the public interest; (5) Violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. "
Legal basis: Article 148 of the Civil Code stipulates that the injured party has the right to request the people's court or an arbitration institution to cancel a civil legal act in which the parties make the expression of will go against the true meaning by fraudulent means.