By Maximilian Berentzen·Last updated 13 August 2026·Primary sources only · not reviewed by a Cyprus lawyer

How we verify

Every figure on this site carries a small copper mark — ✦ verified [date] · [source] — under a table, a calculator, or a number in the margin. This page explains what that mark means, and what it means when a figure doesn't have one.

What the mark means

A figure carrying the mark has been traced to a primary source — legislation, a government department, or a Big Four tax summary used as a cross-check — as at the date shown. The date is when it was last checked, not when it was first written. If it's been a while, that's a reason to ask us to check it again, not a reason to assume it's still current.

What counts as a primary source

The Department of Lands and Surveys, the Cyprus Tax Department, and the legislation itself via the Official Gazette. PwC Worldwide Tax Summaries is used as a cross-check where the primary text is unclear or hard to obtain. Law firm publications can corroborate a figure — they are never the sole support for one.

What we exclude

No property portal, estate agency, developer site, or tax content site is used as a source for any figure on this site — not even to corroborate. Competitors in this space routinely cite each other, which is how a single error propagates across a dozen "independent" sources. We can't honestly say we're different from those sites and then use them as references.

The three states

Every figure in our data has one of three states. Verified figures render normally, with the mark. Unverified and conflicting figures do not render at all — the number is withheld rather than guessed, shown instead as a plain notice that it isn't published yet.

This isn't an editorial policy we could forget to follow. It's enforced by the code itself: a page that cites a figure which isn't verified fails to build. There's no draft state where an unverified number reaches a live page by accident — the build stops it before that's possible.

When sources disagree

Both positions get stated, and neither is presented as settled until we can trace it to something conclusive. A live example: published sources give two different rates for the gratuitous-transfer fee between spouses — 0.01% and 0.1%. We use PwC's figure, 0.1%, as the better-sourced of the two, and say plainly on the transfer fees page that the discrepancy exists and hasn't been independently resolved. We'd rather show you the disagreement than pick a number and hide that there was a choice.

What we don't know yet

Stating the gaps honestly is more useful than pretending they don't exist. Current open questions include:

• The scope of a further fee-aggregation provision in Cap. 219's Schedule (Chapter 17(b)), which may bear on split or staged property transfers — the primary text hasn't been available in a form we can read closely enough to state its scope with confidence.

Where we can, we ask the relevant department directly and treat their written answer as a citable, dated primary source. Where we can't yet, we say so instead of filling the gap with something that sounds plausible.

Found something wrong?

If you believe a figure is out of date or incorrect, tell us. We'll check it against the primary source and update the verification date either way — whether that means correcting the figure or confirming it's still right.

Last checked 13 August 2026.