[Report] 'Why 80% of Next-Generation Real Estate Owners Cannot Act Despite Dissatisfaction'

[Overview]

82.5% of next-generation owners with assets exceeding 300 million yen are dissatisfied with their tax advisors but unable to act due to the parent-generation concept that 'seeking another opinion equals betrayal.' The common factor among those who successfully took action was the idea of 'not replacing the existing tax advisor, but utilizing a second opinion for specific tasks.' This report examines the turning points through five case studies.

In May 2026, a survey by PROLEXT revealed that 82.5% of next-generation owners among landlords and high-net-worth individuals are dissatisfied with their current tax advisors. Common complaints included a lack of concrete data, poor evidence for suggestions, and a lack of specialized knowledge outside of core tax matters.

However, these heirs, bound by the sense of obligation to maintain 'long-standing relationships from their parents' generation,' remain unable to consult other experts, leaving their inheritance preparations stalled.

This report analyzes five cases of heirs who were 'able to act' and those who 'could not act' despite being bound by these relationships. The divergence was not a matter of capability or information, but rather a specific point of decision-making.

The essence of the turning point: 'Obligation'

Analysis of customer feedback revealed that the most common reason for inaction was: 'I couldn't bring myself to consult another expert against my parents' wishes while having a teacher we've known for years,' 'It feels like betraying both the teacher and my parents,' or 'I was afraid of causing friction, so I left it as is.'

A sense of 'obligation'—not a lack of ability or information—was stopping economically rational decisions. Unlike the medical world, where seeking a specialist's opinion is normal, the inheritance world has a structure where the same action is perceived as a 'betrayal.' This asymmetry is the root cause of the widespread dissatisfaction.

This report uses the term 'second opinion' to describe an approach where specialists in inheritance and real estate assessment are utilized only for specific tasks while maintaining the relationship with the existing tax advisor.

[Five Case Studies]

Case 1: Re-evaluating land assessment (Client A)
Estimated inheritance tax was 130 million yen. Upon learning that land assessments can vary significantly, the client sought a second opinion. PROLEXT's re-calculation predicted the tax at approximately 50 million yen (a 60% reduction) by combining strategic gift-giving and asset management company setup.

Case 2: Overcoming 'cost-ineffectiveness' (Client B)
Initially told that setting up an asset management company would be cost-ineffective, the client sought PROLEXT. Simulation taking into account future tax suppression effects revealed that corporate benefits far outweighed the costs, redefining the goal from mere tax reduction to asset succession.

Case 3: Breaking months of deadlock (Client C)
Adjusting real estate rights between siblings had stalled. The original tax advisor lacked experience in 'property interest exchange.' PROLEXT handled the specific mechanism for the exchange, completing registration in about a month and a half without damaging the relationship with the original advisor.

Case 4: Emergency review before contract signing (Client D)
Inheritance tax was calculated at 200 million yen, prompting a rapid plan to sell ancestral land to pay the tax. PROLEXT intervened one week before the contract, re-evaluated the land, and reduced the tax burden to 150 million yen, allowing the client to sell minimal land and build an apartment on the remainder.

Case 5: Overcoming hesitation in communication (Client E)
Struggling with how to initiate inheritance discussions with parents, the client couldn't bring a specialist. PROLEXT proposed starting by optimizing the annual tax filing, allowing for a natural transition into future inheritance simulations.