What is the ruling on the bank stipulating in a Murabaha contract that the property seller transfer ownership directly to the buyer, and that the buyer be responsible for paying the real estate transaction tax to the seller?

Murabahah for the one who commands the purchase is permissible if it is done through two separate contracts: The first between the bank and the property owner, whereby the bank acquires ownership of the property, takes possession of it, and it enters its liability. The second is between the bank and the client at a deferred price. It is permissible for the bank to stipulate to the property owner that ownership be transferred directly to the client to reduce expenses or expedite procedures, provided that this does not conflict with the bank's ownership of the property and its liability for it before selling it to the client. It is permissible to place the responsibility for collecting real estate transaction tax on the property owner, to be paid by the client. The contract between the bank and the property owner must be a genuine sale with its legal implications, and the bank must bear the responsibility for damage before delivery and the liability for hidden defects, so that the Murabahah does not become a facade for a loan.