En la mayoría de los países, las propiedades del gobierno no se encuentran sujetas al impuesto sobre la propiedad; de hecho, la sola idea podría considerarse como un intercambio circular de dinero (Bird y Slack 2004; Youngman y Malme 1994). En el último tiempo, el Reino Unido ha adoptado un punto de vista muy diferente. Considerando que es muy importante que tanto el gobierno como los ocupantes del gobierno municipal estén al tanto del verdadero costo que implica tener propiedades, el Reino Unido insiste en un sistema de alquileres teóricos y garantiza la sujeción a los impuestos sobre la propiedad de ámbito municipal.

Desde la promulgación de la Ley de Asistencia a la Pobreza en 1601 (la fecha generalmente aceptada en que comenzó la tributación de inmuebles municipales en el Reino Unido) hasta el año 2000 (cuando se aprobaron los cambios a esta ley), los inmuebles ocupados por el gobierno o la Corona no se encontraban sujetos al impuesto o a las “tasas” sobre la propiedad. No obstante, la Corona, de hecho, aceptó que era apropiado realizar algún tipo de aporte con el fin de cubrir los costos de los servicios municipales, por lo que pagaba voluntariamente aportes en lugar de tasas (CILOR, por sus siglas en inglés). Este proceso conllevaba varios problemas: los aportes eran voluntarios; los inmuebles de la Corona no figuraban en los listados de valuaciones; y la base sobre la cual se realizaban los aportes carecía del rigor y la transparencia de valuación que se aplicaban al resto de las propiedades.

La Ley Municipal de Gobierno y Valuación se promulgó en 1997 para su aplicación en Inglaterra, Escocia y Gales (más tarde, en 1998, se introdujo una modificación para Irlanda del Norte) con el fin de que todos los inmuebles de la Corona estuvieran en pie de igualdad con respecto al resto de las propiedades sujetas a impuesto y pudieran ser pasibles de ser valuadas para determinar sus tasas. Estas disposiciones entraron en vigor el 1 de abril de 2000. Como resultado, edificios emblemáticos tales como el Palacio de Westminster y la Torre de Londres son valuados por primera vez en la actualidad de la misma manera que el resto de las propiedades.

Valuación de inmuebles comerciales

Los tasadores de la Agencia de Valuaciones (VOA, por sus siglas en inglés), perteneciente al Departamento de Impuestos y Aduanas de Su Majestad (HMRC, por sus siglas en inglés), son los responsables de compilar y mantener los listados de valuaciones de inmuebles comerciales (no residenciales) para Inglaterra y Gales. En Escocia, los responsables son los tasadores municipales, y en Irlanda del Norte, la responsabilidad recae sobre el Servicio de Suelos e Inmuebles. En general, el valor catastral de un inmueble no residencial está basado en el alquiler anual por el cual podría haberse alquilado en el mercado abierto a una fecha estándar (la fecha de valuación precedente). En el caso de Inglaterra y Gales, la fecha precedente para los listados de 2000 fue el 1 de abril de 1998; para los listados de 2005, el 1 de abril de 2003; y para los listados de 2010, que entraron en vigor el 1 de abril de 2010, la fecha precedente fue el 1 de abril de 2008.

La Tabla 1 muestra la cantidad de inmuebles sujetos a impuesto en Inglaterra y Gales y su valor catastral (imponible) total. Resulta un tanto difícil realizar comparaciones con los impuestos sobre la propiedad basados en el valor capital, ya que para ello es necesario conocer los rendimientos respectivos; aún así, es evidente que el nivel de tributación es extraordinariamente alto para un impuesto sobre la propiedad. El nivel del impuesto en Inglaterra y Gales es de aproximadamente el 45 por ciento, aunque esta cifra corresponde a los valores de alquiler, no de capital.

El gobierno del Reino Unido establece una tasa uniforme del impuesto en forma separada (peso por libra esterlina) para Inglaterra, conocida como el multiplicador de valuación para inmuebles no residenciales. En Escocia y Gales, esta tasa es determinada por sus respectivas asambleas y, en el caso de Irlanda del Norte, cada consejo distrital establece su propia tasa. Así se determina el monto a pagar sobre cada libra esterlina de valor catastral, a fin de obtener la factura completa de tasas del impuesto. Las autoridades municipales son las responsables de calcular el monto de las facturas y recaudar las tasas del impuesto sobre inmuebles no residenciales correspondientes a las propiedades que se encuentran dentro de sus áreas de influencia. No obstante, las autoridades no conservan los montos que cobran, sino que los depositan en un fondo nacional (uno para Inglaterra y otro para Gales). El dinero que conforma dicho fondo se redistribuye luego entre las autoridades municipales, con ciertos acuerdos especiales para la ciudad de Londres.

Antecedentes de la exención a la Corona

Antes de que se emitieran los listados de valuaciones en el año 2000, ciertas propiedades ocupadas por la Corona, tales como las instalaciones donde funcionan las oficinas del gobierno central y el Ministerio de Defensa, se encontraban exentas de la valuación y no figuraban en ningún listado de valuaciones. No obstante, la Corona realizaba un CILOR en forma voluntaria en base a un valor catastral teórico.

La Corona no figuraba expresamente ni en la Ley de Asistencia a la Pobreza de 1601 (la ley original de valuaciones se conocía también como la Ley de Isabel) ni en la Ley de Tasas Generales de 1967 que la reemplazó. Debido a que uno de los principios del derecho del Reino Unido consistía en que la Corona no se encontraba sujeta a ningún acto parlamentario a menos que se la mencionara específicamente, no era susceptible a las tasas. Además, no podía imponerse tasa alguna sobre aquellos inmuebles ocupados por sus funcionarios cuando dicha ocupación se entendía como ocupación por la Corona. Este fue el punto de vista mantenido en la causa Jones contra Mersey Docks 11 HL Cas. 443 (1865).

Sin embargo, ya en 1860 el gobierno aceptó el principio de que la Corona pagara alguna suma en forma de CILOR voluntario respecto de los inmuebles ocupados a los fines públicos. Dicha práctica se volvió uniforme en 1874. El Tesoro del Reino Unido adoptó, mediante acta formal, el principio de que los inmuebles ocupados para las funciones públicas debían pagar tasas municipales de la misma manera que otros inmuebles de los condados en los que estaban ubicados, teniendo en cuenta las características de cada caso. El acta del Tesoro estableció el Departamento de Valuaciones de Propiedades del Gobierno (RGPD, por sus siglas en inglés) para evaluar todos los inmuebles del gobierno con el fin de adoptar, en cada caso y hasta donde fuera posible, los mismos principios que se aplicaban a la valuación de inmuebles particulares.

El derecho consuetudinario del siglo XIX establecía que la exención sólo se aplicaba a las propiedades ocupadas por la Corona misma o sus funcionarios, y no al resto de los inmuebles ocupados con fines públicos. Por lo tanto, la exención se aplicaba generalmente a los inmuebles ocupados para usos del gobierno central y a los palacios y parques reales, así como también a otros inmuebles ocupados por funcionarios de la Corona (por ejemplo, la ocupación por parte de los ministros de gobierno o el personal militar de la base naval real, del ejército y de la fuerza aérea real).

En 1896, mediante otra acta del Tesoro se reafirmó el principio de aporte equitativo y se establecieron ciertas concesiones a fin de que entrara en plena vigencia. Estas concesiones consistían en una revaluación periódica, el pago dentro de los plazos establecidos y una contribución con respecto a las cámaras del Parlamento.

A continuación se detallan las principales características del CILOR en los últimos años de su existencia:

• La Unidad de Inmuebles de la Corona (CPU, por sus siglas en inglés) de la VOA era la responsable de aceptar las tasaciones y el CILOR (después de absorber al RGPD).
• Las autoridades de valuación cobraban a la CPU los pagos del CILOR.
• Para realizar las valuaciones y calcular las facturas se seguían exactamente las mismas normas y métodos que para las tasas propiamente dichas, teniendo en cuenta las exenciones a la valuación que fueran aplicables.
• Las autoridades municipales incluían los pagos del CILOR junto con otros ingresos por tasas no residenciales en un fondo de valuaciones, y estos pagos combinados luego se redistribuían entre las autoridades receptoras.

Los acuerdos del CILOR se diferenciaban del resto de los procedimientos de valuación estándar en los siguientes aspectos principales:

• Los aportes eran, en teoría, voluntarios.
• Las valuaciones que establecía en principio el RGPD (aunque luego se acordaban con el funcionario de valuaciones municipal) no siempre estaban al mismo nivel de las tasaciones normales.
• Los entes de la Corona no poseían los mismos derechos que tenían los contribuyentes para apelar las valuaciones y para que dicha apelación se determinara en un tribunal de valuaciones independiente.
• Debido a que, según la teoría constitucional, la Corona es una e indivisible, el tratamiento del CILOR para inmuebles ocupados por más de un ente de la Corona era diferente al tratamiento que habitualmente se aplicaba a propiedades valuables con diferentes ocupantes. Respecto del CILOR, por lo general se realizaba una única valuación por el inmueble como un todo, y luego se calculaba una única factura que se enviaba al ocupante principal, quien posteriormente recuperaba las proporciones correspondientes del impuesto total a pagar de cada uno de los ocupantes menores. Según las tasas estándar, por lo general se realizan valuaciones por separado para cada parte de la propiedad que tiene diferentes ocupantes, y luego cada ocupante recibe una factura por separado.

Fundamentos para eliminar la exención a la Corona

El gobierno ha estado debatiendo la eliminación de la exención a la Corona ya desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. El Comité Central de Valuaciones, en una carta fechada el 21 de enero de 1947 y dirigida al Ministro de Salud, de hecho sugería dicha eliminación, a la vez que declaraba que su punto de vista, desde hacía mucho tiempo, era que los acuerdos de valuación de inmuebles ocupados por la Corona vigentes hasta ese momento eran en muchos aspectos injustos e insatisfactorios para las autoridades municipales, quienes, en ese entonces, establecían sus propios niveles de tasas. En la década de 1950, las asociaciones de autoridades municipales inglesas expresaron su descontento con la exención aplicable a la Corona y llegaron hasta el punto de declarar que la forma de calcular los CILOR era completamente arbitraria y que con frecuencia representaba un perjuicio para las autoridades municipales. En 1952 calcularon el valor catastral de los inmuebles de la Corona en Inglaterra y Gales en aproximadamente £14 millones, de un valor catastral total de cerca de £341 millones, lo que equivaldría a £2.200 millones según los niveles de valores en la revaluación del año 2010.

A mediados de la década de 1990, el gobierno consideró varios aspectos impulsores para un cambio:

• La exención de tasas aplicable a la Corona no respondía a ningún objetivo evidente de política pública, ya que, en todo caso, se esperaba que los ocupantes de la Corona realizaran CILOR.
• Según el Informe Oficial de la Carta de Ciudadanos (1991), la política general del gobierno era que debía eliminarse progresivamente la inmunidad general de la Corona a medida que se fueran dando las oportunidades legislativas, para que la Corona estuviera sujeta, en general, a los acuerdos normativos y regulatorios en pie de igualdad respecto de los demás.
• La falta de derechos de apelación para los ocupantes de la Corona fue, en principio, insatisfactoria.

La Ley Municipal de Gobierno y Valuación de 1997 estableció la eliminación de la exención que gozaba la Corona de tasas por inmuebles no residenciales en Inglaterra, Gales y Escocia con vigencia a partir del 1 de abril de 2000. Las autoridades responsables de la valuación cobrarían las tasas correspondientes a los inmuebles de la Corona directamente a los respectivos departamentos, en lugar de cobrarlos a la CPU. Dichas autoridades también podrían iniciar procedimientos de ejecución en contra de la Corona, tal como lo harían con otros contribuyentes. Aunque esto ocurriría solamente en raras ocasiones, las autoridades responsables de las valuaciones podrían, en principio, tomar medidas contra un departamento del gobierno con el fin de obtener una orden de apremio por falta de pago de tasas, en el caso de que fuera necesario.

Los profesionales de la valuación en el Reino Unido han sugerido que, debido a que la valuación es un impuesto, tasar y sujetar a impuesto los inmuebles ocupados por entes públicos representa un derroche de recursos públicos. Las propiedades que podrían incluirse en esta categoría incluyen aquellas ocupadas por el Ministerio de Defensa, el Servicio Nacional de Salud y las autoridades municipales. Superficialmente, el hecho de valuar y sujetar a impuesto estas propiedades puede parecer injustificado. La dificultad reside en que muchas de las actividades que tradicionalmente son llevadas a cabo por el gobierno central o los gobiernos municipales ahora son también realizadas por el sector privado. Un ejemplo de ello son los centros de recreación. Aplicar la exención de tasas a las propiedades de las autoridades municipales cuando estas compiten directamente con el sector privado podría considerarse injusto, ya que le brindaría una ventaja fiscal al sector público.

Aunque el sector público ocupa otros edificios cuya utilización actual evidentemente no compite con el sector privado, resulta difícil justificar la exención de ciertos inmuebles ocupados por el sector público, mientras incluye otros. La justificación original para valuar edificios ocupados por los entes públicos (incluyendo la eliminación de la exención a la Corona en 2000) fue establecer una base en condiciones de igualdad, garantizar que los costos de ocupación se reconocieran en su totalidad y brindar transparencia en cuanto a la contribución de los entes del sector público para cubrir los costos relacionados con los servicios públicos brindados.

Valuación de edificios emblemáticos

La eliminación de la exención a la Corona precipitó la necesidad de valuar una amplia gama de inmuebles fuera de lo común. La valuación en el Reino Unido es un impuesto que se aplica al ocupante y no al propietario, y está basado en la utilización real amplia en lugar de la mayor y mejor utilización del inmueble. Los edificios muy antiguos con frecuencia deben ser valuados, aunque muchos de ellos se han modernizado y se utilizan para diferentes fines, tales como oficinas, usos comerciales mixtos o, al menos en parte, atracciones turísticas.

El tradicional enfoque de comparación de valuaciones pudo aplicarse en inmuebles que tenían un uso similar, con el fin de permitir la determinación de un valor de alquiler indicativo para algunas estructuras, aunque, en el caso de otras, la tarea resultó mucho más difícil. Por ejemplo, la Casa Somerset, sobre el río Támesis, es un bloque de oficinas construido a tal fin, pero es además el primer bloque de oficinas del gobierno que fue construido a tal fin, data de 1776 y ha sido utilizado en filmaciones comerciales, por lo que resulta difícil compararlo con otros edificios.

La valuación de inmuebles fuera de lo común no se limita a las propiedades de la Corona o a aquellas en las que el método de comparación de alquileres no puede usarse porque no existen comparaciones de interés. En tales casos, la aplicación del método de ingresos y gastos o el método de las ganancias puede resultar mucho más confiable a la hora de determinar el valor de mercado en cuanto al alquiler de una propiedad. Este método es apropiado si el inmueble sujeto a valuación es comercial por naturaleza o posee cierto grado de monopolio, y si la principal motivación del ocupante para utilizar el inmueble fuera obtener ganancias y, de hecho, estuviera obteniéndolas (Bond y Brown 2006).

En el caso de no poder utilizar ni el método de la comparación ni el método de ingresos y gastos, se aplica entonces el método de base de contratistas o método de costos cuando el inmueble sirve principalmente para fines públicos y no se encuentra ocupado para beneficio comercial, o cuando el inmueble en cuestión es comercial pero no constituye un centro de ganancias con sus propias cuentas. En ambos casos, el ocupante (o propietario) debería soportar el costo de un inmueble de reemplazo para poder continuar con la utilización del inmueble.

Además del problema de la valuación, nos enfrentamos a la complejidad que existe en el Reino Unido en cuanto a tener un impuesto separado sobre propiedades residenciales. En Inglaterra, Escocia y Gales, este tributo se denomina impuesto municipal, mientras que en Irlanda del Norte, el sistema tiene que ver con tasas residenciales. Si alguna parte del inmueble se utiliza para fines residenciales, según se define en la legislación, entonces se determina el impuesto residencial sobre dicha porción del inmueble. De esta manera, en cuanto al Palacio de Buckingham y al Castillo de Windsor, ambos palacios reales, se aplica una valuación sobre la porción no residencial y comercial, y un impuesto municipal sobre las secciones residenciales de dichos edificios.

Palacio de Westminster

El Palacio de Westminster, también denominado Parlamento, es un palacio real y el lugar donde las dos cámaras del Parlamento del Reino Unido celebran sus sesiones, es decir, la Cámara de los Lores y la Cámara de los Comunes. El Palacio es el centro de la vida política y “Westminster” se ha convertido en una metonimia que refiere al Parlamento del Reino Unido y al sistema de gobierno de Westminster, del cual se origina su nombre. La Torre de Isabel, a la cual generalmente se la llama por el nombre de su campana principal, Big Ben, es un hito emblemático de Londres. La arquitectura del Renacimiento Gótico, obra de Sir Charles Barry, data de 1840, pero el extraordinario Salón de Westminster con su techo de cerchas se remonta al año 1097.

El Palacio de Westminster ha sido parte del patrimonio de la humanidad desde 1987. Este Palacio tenía un valor catastral de £14.700.000 en el listado municipal de valuaciones de 2010 (£5.500.000 en el listado de valuaciones de 2000). Si se aplica la tasa estándar del impuesto del 45,8 por ciento, la deuda impositiva ascendería, sin tener en cuenta ninguna exención, a aproximadamente £6.730.000 por año. La tasación en realidad combina cuatro edificios: el Palacio, la Casa Portcullis, la Puerta Derby 1 y los edificios Norman Shaw. Todas estas secciones se valúan según el método comparativo respecto de las oficinas, y se aplican descuentos por diseño y tamaño, de corresponder. En el caso del Palacio, ambas Cámaras se encuentran valuadas al 65 por ciento de la tasa principal por metro cuadrado. Existe también otro descuento con el fin de reflejar la superficie cubierta total en la propiedad.

Palacio de Buckingham

El Palacio de Buckingham es la residencia oficial y principal lugar de trabajo de Su Majestad la Reina Isabel II en Londres, tanto respecto de su posición como monarca británica y jefe de estado de varios países en todo el mundo, como de cabeza de la Mancomunidad Británica. Este Palacio, ubicado en la ciudad de Westminster, es la sede donde se desarrollan los eventos de estado y donde se brinda hospedaje real. El edificio que hoy en día forma el centro del palacio, y que anteriormente se denominaba Casa Buckingham, era una gran residencia urbana que se construyó para el Duque de Buckingham en 1705. El Palacio de Buckingham se convirtió en el palacio real oficial de los monarcas británicos cuando la Reina Victoria ascendió al trono en 1837.

El Palacio de Buckingham se utiliza en parte como una de las residencias del monarca, aunque principalmente consiste de oficinas. Hace poco se ha permitido cierto uso comercial limitado, ya que algunos sectores del edificio se encuentran abiertos a los visitantes. La parte comercial posee un valor catastral de £1.300.000 según el listado de valuación municipal de 2010. El Palacio se valúa utilizando dos métodos. En primer lugar, se aplica el método de ingresos y gastos o de ganancias a fin de reflejar el componente comercial (aproximadamente 400.000 personas lo visitaron en el año 2011). La propiedad está abierta durante 63 días al año en horarios limitados, por lo que los ingresos respectivos se consideran anualizados y luego se agrega el 5 por ciento a fin de reflejar el hecho de que, si estuviera abierto al público durante más horas, se generarían más ingresos por entradas. Las cuentas comerciales, según los informes publicados, muestran que el valor catastral fue equivalente al 6,3 por ciento de los ingresos corrientes de mantenimiento. En segundo lugar, el método de contratistas o de costos se aplica a la Galería de la Reina. El componente residencial del Palacio posee 775 habitaciones, entre las que se cuentan 52 dormitorios reales y para huéspedes, 188 dormitorios para el personal, 19 salas de estado y 78 baños. En el período 2011-2012, la factura del impuesto municipal ascendió a £1.369.

Torre de Londres

El Palacio Real y Fortaleza de Su Majestad, comúnmente conocida como la Torre de Londres, es un castillo histórico que descansa sobre la ribera norte del río Támesis en la zona central de Londres y data de la conquista de Inglaterra por parte de los Normandos en el año 1066. La Torre Blanca, que le otorga su nombre a todo el castillo, fue construida por Guillermo el Conquistador en 1078. La Torre ha tenido diferentes funciones: arsenal, oficina del tesoro, prisión, zoológico, sede de la Casa de la Moneda Real y oficina de registros públicos. En la actualidad, la Torre alberga las joyas de la Corona y es una de las atracciones turísticas más conocidas del país: en el año 2011 recibió aproximadamente 2,55 millones de visitantes.

La Torre se encuentra protegida ya que ha sido declarada patrimonio de la humanidad por la UNESCO (además de estar protegida por muros muy altos y sistemas de alarma muy elaborados). El inmueble se valúa según el método de ingresos y gastos, debido a su valor particular en calidad de atracción turística. El valor catastral equivale aproximadamente al 4,7 por ciento de los ingresos corrientes de mantenimiento. En el listado municipal de valuaciones del año 2010, la propiedad tenía un valor catastral de £1.790.000 (en el listado de valuaciones del año 2000 el valor fue de £1.180.000).

Stonehenge

Stonehenge es un círculo de piedras prehistórico que se encuentra en la llanura de Salisbury. Está integrado por un monumento de rocas megalítico formado por 150 piedras enormes colocadas siguiendo un diseño circular, que data del año 3.000 A.C. Aunque existen otros círculos de piedras mucho más grandes en otros lugares del mundo (inclusive uno cercano en Averbury), Stonehenge es único debido a que las piedras de arenisca se encuentran coronadas por dinteles que se empalman unos con otros y que, alguna vez, formaron un círculo completo y conectado. Stonehenge fue construido a lo largo de un período de 1.500 años. Se lo ha declarado patrimonio de la humanidad y atrae aproximadamente un millón de visitantes al año. Debido al funcionamiento comercial de esta propiedad, se la valúa aplicando el método de ingresos y gastos, a un valor catastral de £700.000.

Resumen

Los inmuebles que son propiedad de la Corona y ocupados por esta se valúan actualmente de acuerdo con los métodos y principios normales de valuación. La eliminación de la exención a la Corona ha dado como resultado la valuación “correcta” de ciertos edificios históricos únicos y, muchas veces, emblemáticos. Los métodos de valuación aplicados deben reflejar la utilización que se hace de cada edificio y, donde las comparaciones de alquileres sean limitadas, es posible que deba aplicarse el enfoque basado en los costos. Este último enfoque implica importantes dificultades cuando se aplica a edificios con una antigüedad de varios centenares de años. En tales casos, los tasadores deben ser creativos, artísticos y científicos en sus valuaciones.

Sobre los autores

William McCluskey es investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones sobre el Entorno Construido de la Universidad de Ulster, Irlanda del Norte, Reino Unido. Contacto: wj.mccluskey@ulster.ac.uk.

David Tretton FRICS FIRRV es profesor invitado en la Facultad de Entorno Construido de la Universidad de Ulster, Irlanda del Norte, Reino Unido. Anteriormente fue jefe de departamento y director de Tasación en la Agencia de Valuaciones de Londres. En la actualidad es el editor técnico de RICS Valuation – Professional Standards (libro rojo). Contacto: dtretton@rics.org o djtretton@btinternet.com.

Los autores desean agradecer a Patrick Bond, BSc FRICS Dip. Rating IRRV (Hons), jefe de la Unidad de Especialistas Nacionales en Asuntos Comerciales, Cívicos y de Ocio de la Agencia de Valuaciones de Londres.

Referencias

Bird, R. M. y E. Slack. 2004. International handbook of land and property taxation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bond, P. y P. Brown. 2006. Rating valuation: Principles and practice. Londres: Estates Gazette.

Informe Oficial de la Carta de Ciudadanos. 1991. Citizens Charter Open Government, Cm 2290, HMSO, Londres.

Youngman, J. M. y J. H. Malme. 1994. An international survey of taxes on land and buildings. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

El fortalecimiento de la salud fiscal municipal en China

Desde el año 2013, Zhi Liu se ha desempeñado como investigador senior y director del Programa para China del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. También es director del Centro para el Desarrollo Urbano y Políticas de Suelo de la Universidad de Pekín y el Instituto Lincoln (PLC). Anteriormente, Zhi fue especialista principal en infraestructuras en el Banco Mundial, donde trabajó durante 18 años y obtuvo experiencia operativa en varios países en vías de desarrollo.

Zhi obtuvo el título de grado (BS) en Geografía Económica por la Universidad Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (China), el título de maestría (MS) en Planificación Municipal y Regional por la Universidad de Nanjing (China) y el título de doctorado (Ph.D.) en Planificación Urbana por la Universidad de Harvard.

LAND LINES: Hace poco el Instituto Lincoln comenzó un plan de investigación sobre la salud fiscal municipal en todo el mundo. Esta tarea surgió al detectar que algunas ciudades de los Estados Unidos y de muchos otros países, como China, enfrentan dificultades financieras. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza de los problemas fiscales municipales en China?

ZHI LIU: Es muy diferente de las dificultades económicas que enfrentan las ciudades de los Estados Unidos. Estos dos países se encuentran en etapas de urbanización muy distintas. Mientras que los EE.UU. tiene un alto nivel de urbanización (más del 80 por ciento de los ciudadanos vive en áreas urbanas), según el censo de 2010, China todavía está a medio camino del proceso de urbanización. Hoy en día, 750 millones de ciudadanos chinos viven en ciudades, lo que representa el 55 por ciento de la población total. Para el año 2050, se espera que la población urbana alcance 1,1 mil millones de habitantes, es decir, el 75 por ciento de la población total. En los últimos veinte años, con la excepción de unas pocas ciudades mineras, casi todos los municipios han experimentado un rápido crecimiento de la población y una expansión espacial, lo que ha generado una gran demanda de inversiones públicas en infraestructura urbana.

En China, las principales fuentes de financiamiento para inversiones en infraestructura urbana son los ingresos provenientes de las concesiones del suelo y los préstamos que los municipios solicitan a los bancos comerciales, por lo general usando el suelo como garantía. El suelo urbano es de propiedad del Estado, y el suelo rural es de propiedad conjunta de las aldeas. La Ley de Administración del Suelo establece que sólo el Estado tiene el poder para convertir suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano, lo que crea el marco propicio para que los gobiernos municipales tomen suelo rural con el fin de realizar un desarrollo urbano mediante el proceso de concesión del suelo. De hecho, los gobiernos municipales expropian el suelo rural, lo dotan de infraestructura y venden los derechos de uso del suelo a desarrolladores inmobiliarios. La compensación que reciben los agricultores por el suelo que se les expropia no es muy alta, ya que se calcula según el valor de producción agrícola del suelo en lugar del valor de mercado del suelo para uso urbano. Cuando la demanda de desarrollo inmobiliario es alta, los precios de licitación para la concesión del suelo son altos, y los gobiernos municipales comienzan a recaudar grandes sumas de dinero. En los últimos diez años, los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo han representado más de un tercio del total de los ingresos fiscales municipales.

Además, los gobiernos municipales expanden aun más su capacidad financiera mediante la utilización de propiedades de suelo a modo de garantías con el fin de obtener préstamos de los bancos comerciales. La Ley de Presupuesto Chino, antes de una reciente modificación, no permitía que los gobiernos municipales solicitaran préstamos. Sin embargo, la mayoría de los gobiernos municipales superó las restricciones de la ley mediante la creación de sus propios vehículos financieros municipales, conocidos como sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano (sociedades anónimas de inversión en desarrollo urbano, UDIC, por sus siglas en inglés). Las UDIC solicitaban préstamos comerciales o emitían bonos privados para los gobiernos. Las deudas municipales pendientes de pago han crecido rápidamente en los últimos años, y en la actualidad han alcanzado al menos un tercio del PIB.

El mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo ha ayudado a los gobiernos municipales de China a recaudar una suma significativa de fondos destinados a la inversión de capital. No obstante, este éxito también ha generado un incentivo para que los gobiernos municipales dependan demasiado de las concesiones del suelo y de las UDIC. Hoy en día, la economía de China crece mucho más lentamente que antes, por lo que este mecanismo está perdiendo fuerza en muchos municipios donde la conversión del suelo rural en suelo de uso urbano excede la demanda real. Algunas ciudades han obtenido más préstamos de los que podían devolver, y han quedado fuertemente endeudadas.

Según muchos estudios empíricos, incluidos algunos financiados por el Instituto Lincoln, el mecanismo de financiamiento basado en el suelo en China es una de las principales causas de otros problemas urbanos que enfrentamos en la actualidad, tales como precios exorbitantes de la vivienda, deudas municipales en aumento, excesiva expropiación del suelo, creciente tensión entre agricultores y gobiernos municipales en torno a la expropiación del suelo, y brechas cada vez mayores en la distribución de los ingresos y la riqueza entre las poblaciones urbanas y las rurales.

LL: Los medios de comunicación internacionales han estado realizando informes acerca de estos problemas. ¿De qué manera afrontará China estas cuestiones?

ZL: Existe un alto nivel de consenso acerca de las causas profundas de estos problemas. En noviembre de 2013, el gobierno central anunció una serie de reformas, algunas de las cuales están directamente relacionadas con políticas de urbanización y finanzas municipales. Por ejemplo, los alcances de las expropiaciones del suelo se limitarán a los fines públicos, por lo que las aldeas podrán desarrollar su suelo para uso urbano según la premisa de que se realice de acuerdo con lo planificado. Las reformas también requieren la aceleración de la legislación sobre el impuesto a la propiedad, la reforma del hukou (el sistema de inscripción residencial para familias, que ayuda a los agricultores a convertirse en residentes urbanos) y la toma de medidas por parte del gobierno para poner los servicios públicos urbanos básicos a disposición de todos los residentes permanentes de las ciudades, incluso a los que migran del suelo rural al urbano.

LL: ¿Cuáles son los efectos de la reforma del hukou en las finanzas municipales?

ZL: El gobierno chino está eliminando gradualmente el antiguo sistema del hukou, y los efectos de esta decisión sobre las finanzas municipales serán importantes. El hukou se diseñó con el fin de identificar a un ciudadano como residente de una cierta ciudad, aunque durante décadas el gobierno utilizó este sistema para controlar la migración de áreas rurales a urbanas. Una persona inscrita como hukou rural no podía cambiar su inscripción a hukou urbano sin la autorización del gobierno. Y sin la inscripción como hukou urbano, un trabajador rural migrante no tiene derecho a recibir los servicios públicos que proporcionan los gobiernos urbanos.

A partir de la reforma económica, la economía urbana en expansión ha absorbido una gran cantidad de trabajadores migrantes que pasan de áreas rurales a urbanas. Anteriormente mencioné que el índice de urbanización de China es del 55 por ciento y que la población urbana es de 750 millones de habitantes. Estas cifras incluyen a los 232 millones de trabajadores rurales migrantes que permanecen en ciudades durante más de la mitad del año. Si se los excluyera del cálculo, el nivel de urbanización sería sólo del 38 por ciento. Sin embargo, debido a su inscripción como hukou rural, los trabajadores migrantes no tienen acceso a muchos de los servicios de los que gozan los inscritos como hukou urbano, a pesar de que muchos han trabajado y vivido en ciudades durante varios años. Los gobiernos municipales determinan el alcance de muchos de los servicios públicos urbanos, tales como las escuelas públicas y las viviendas económicas, de acuerdo con la cantidad de inscritos como hukou urbanos que existen dentro de la jurisdicción municipal. La eliminación gradual del hukou aumentaría significativamente la carga fiscal de los gobiernos municipales para proporcionar servicios públicos. Ciertos académicos en China estiman que el costo de prestar la totalidad de los servicios públicos urbanos a cada trabajador rural migrante ascendería al menos a RMB 100.000 (unos US$16.000). El desembolso total para todos los trabajadores rurales migrantes actuales sería al menos de RMB 23 billones (cerca de US$3,8 billones).

LL: China está introduciendo el impuesto sobre la propiedad residencial. ¿En qué estado se encuentra esta iniciativa?

ZL: El gobierno está redactando la primera ley nacional del impuesto sobre la propiedad como parte de la reforma de finanzas públicas actualmente en marcha. China es uno de los pocos países que no poseen impuestos municipales sobre la propiedad. El actual sistema impositivo depende en gran manera de los impuestos sobre los negocios y las transacciones y muy poco de los impuestos sobre los ingresos y la riqueza de los hogares. En una China más urbanizada con una población que tenga mayor poder adquisitivo para ser propietaria de sus propios inmuebles residenciales, el impuesto sobre la propiedad sería una fuente más viable de recaudación municipal. Hoy en día, el 89 por ciento de los hogares urbanos tiene la propiedad de una o más unidades residenciales, y el valor de dichas propiedades tiene mucho que ver con los servicios públicos urbanos. El impuesto sobre la propiedad permitirá que las ciudades impongan este tributo sobre las propiedades residenciales cuyo valor se vería beneficiado por una mejora de los servicios públicos que se brindarían gracias a los ingresos derivados de dicho impuesto. También cubriría una parte de la brecha fiscal que se generaría como consecuencia de la disminución prevista en la recaudación proveniente de las concesiones del suelo. No obstante, el impuesto sobre la propiedad no será una fuente principal de ingresos municipales en el corto plazo, ya que al Congreso Popular Nacional le llevará uno o dos años más aprobar la nueva ley. Además, a las ciudades les llevará dos o tres años establecer la base de datos de propiedades y el sistema de valuación y administración de las mismas.

LL: Debe de ser difícil para las ciudades tener que enfrentar una reducción de los ingresos derivados de las concesiones del suelo sin una alternativa inmediata, especialmente cuando están experimentando una creciente deuda municipal, tal como se ha informado ampliamente. ¿Cómo saldrán de esta situación las ciudades chinas?

ZL: La situación es verdaderamente difícil. La economía de China está en retroceso. El sector inmobiliario ya no es tan pujante como en los últimos diez años, lo que ha dado como resultado una menor demanda de suelo y, como consecuencia, los gobiernos municipales están obteniendo una recaudación derivada de las concesiones de suelo menor. Ahora las ciudades están experimentando una brecha fiscal. Una posible forma de cerrar esta brecha sería que los gobiernos municipales pudieran obtener préstamos. Sin embargo, tal como mencioné anteriormente, muchas ciudades están endeudadas y tienen poca capacidad para seguir pidiendo préstamos. De hecho, la mayoría de las ciudades en China no tiene una capacidad adecuada de gestión de deudas. La ley de presupuesto recientemente modificada permite que los gobiernos provinciales emitan bonos dentro de los límites establecidos por el Concejo del Estado, pero también cierra la posibilidad a los gobiernos municipales de recurrir a otras formas de obtener préstamos. Actualmente, el gobierno central promueve activamente el financiamiento de infraestructura a través de asociaciones público-privadas (PPP, por sus siglas en inglés). Aunque es un buen avance, no será suficiente para cerrar la brecha de financiamiento para infraestructuras, ya que las PPP resultan útiles principalmente en los casos de proyectos de infraestructura que poseen un sólido flujo de ingresos. Existen muchos otros proyectos de infraestructura urbana que generan muy pocos ingresos o directamente ninguno. A la larga, creo que China debería establecer de forma activa un mercado de bonos del gobierno municipal para canalizar los fondos provenientes de inversores institucionales hacia la inversión de infraestructura municipal y permitir que los gobiernos municipales tengan acceso a préstamos comerciales según su solvencia crediticia. A este fin, los gobiernos municipales deben desarrollar su capacidad institucional en varios frentes, tales como la gestión municipal de deudas, la planificación de una mejora de capital, la planificación del financiamiento para varios años, y la gestión municipal de bienes de infraestructura.

LL: ¿El trabajo del PLC es relevante para la reforma actual?

ZL: El PLC fue establecido en forma conjunta por el Instituto Lincoln y la Universidad de Pekín en el año 2007. Cuando ingresé en 2013, el Centro ya había construido su reputación como una de las principales instituciones de investigación y capacitación de China en cuestiones de desarrollo urbano y políticas de suelo. El Centro apoya diferentes actividades, como investigación, capacitación, intercambio académico, diálogo sobre políticas, becas de investigación, proyectos de demostración y publicaciones. Nos enfocamos en cinco temas principales: tributación sobre la propiedad y finanzas municipales, políticas de suelo, viviendas urbanas, desarrollo y planificación urbana, y medio ambiente urbano y su conservación. En los últimos años, nuestros proyectos de investigación han tocado temas como las finanzas dependientes del suelo, las deudas municipales, los precios de la vivienda, la inversión y el financiamiento del capital para infraestructura, y otras cuestiones relevantes para la salud fiscal municipal. Además, hemos brindado capacitación a diferentes agencias gubernamentales de China sobre las experiencias internacionales relativas al análisis y gestión del impuesto a la propiedad. Podría decirse que nuestro trabajo es muy pertinente en lo que respecta a la reforma actual.

La implementación de las nuevas reformas integrales de las políticas está generando una importante demanda de conocimientos internacionales y asesoramiento sobre políticas en las áreas de interés del programa para China, particularmente lo que tiene que ver con los impuestos a la propiedad y las finanzas municipales. Nuestra idea es comenzar un proyecto piloto de demostración en una o dos ciudades chinas seleccionadas, a fin de generar la capacidad institucional que se requiere para desarrollar un nivel de salud fiscal municipal a largo plazo. Nuestro equipo ha comenzado un estudio para desarrollar una serie de indicadores con el fin de medir la salud fiscal municipal de las ciudades chinas. Es el momento oportuno para que iniciemos este plan en China.

This issue of Land Lines highlights many aspects of the Institute’s international education program. We are engaged with colleagues around the world who share our interests in land and tax policy issues, which are often the most critical issues facing developing and transition countries. Policy makers, academics and citizens look to the Lincoln Institute for guidance and training on both the policy and practice of land use planning and development and the valuation and taxation of land and buildings.

However, I believe our international program can also provide important lessons for U.S. policy makers. For example, the participatión en plusvalías in Colombia is an effort to capture for public benefit the land value increments that result from public actions, such as infrastructure investment. The fairness of this policy seems very persuasive, and the Colombian effort to implement a practical instrument to capture this value can provide important insights.

Over the past six years, most of the Institute’s international work has been in Latin America and the Caribbean. Extensive networks of colleagues help us clarify the issues, identify partners, convene appropriate audiences and develop relevant pedagogical materials that supplement our basic curriculum. In learning from them we have been instrumental in fostering the debate on land and tax policy and have had a real impact in the region.

The Institute is also actively engaged with colleagues facing the challenges of implementing new tax policies in South Africa and Eastern Europe. The editors of a new Lincoln Institute book on property taxation in South Africa are using that volume in a series of seminars and workshops with municipal officials this spring, thus providing direct input to legislation now being debated in that country. Another recently published book by Institute faculty offers a comparative analysis of property taxation in six Central and Eastern European countries whose economies are in transition from a centralized to a market-based system.

The Institute also has a 30-year relationship with the Republic of China, in conjunction with the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training, and we are beginning a new program in the People’s Republic of China through the Ministry of Land and Resources with Beijing and Renmin universities and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

On a sad note, the Institute, Brazil and the world mourn the loss of Mayor Celso Daniel of Santo Andre, a city near São Paulo. He was tragically assassinated in January. Daniel had been a regular faculty member in our courses in Brazil and throughout Latin America. He was a progressive mayor and leader of the Workers Party in Brazil, and in 2000 he was re-elected for the third time with over 70 percent of the votes cast. He was a wonderful person and a close friend who will be missed.

In these turbulent times in so many countries worldwide, we will continue to reach out to those who are taking leadership roles in forging new alliances within their cities and regions to develop the most appropriate land use and taxation policies and practices.

The demand for urban services surpasses the financial capacity of most cities around the world. To address this problem, many municipal governments successfully use the property tax, combined with other management instruments, to raise needed revenues. In Central America, El Salvador is the only country that does not currently have a tax on land and buildings. However, public officials, academic experts and business leaders have begun to discuss the necessity of establishing a property tax system and strategies for its implementation.

El Salvador’s taxation system is recognized as being inequitable and the amount of tax actually collected is very low, thus affecting the level of public investment. Decades of civil war and economic chaos left the country without an established tradition of fiscal management and controls. Changes in the taxation system began in 1993 when the former patrimonial tax on personal and business property, including real property, and the 5-percent sales tax were both abolished and replaced by a 13-percent sales tax. These taxes, and an ongoing income tax, are all collected by the central government.

The only municipal tax is an archaic and complex tax based on commercial, industrial, financial and services activities. Because of their limited capacity to raise revenues, municipalities have few opportunities to contract loans from national banks and no possibility of obtaining loans from international financial institutions. Administrative deficiencies, cadastral problems and limitations of the legal framework also contribute to the weak financial base of the municipal governments. Since metropolitan San Salvador encompasses such a large part of this small country, local taxation and other fiscal planning programs introduced there have a significant impact on the entire country.

In 1998 the Municipal Council of San Salvador proposed increases in its business activity tax, raising immediate debate among business organizations and municipal officials. Business leaders argued that the proposed tax program would generate additional costs, compelling them to raise the price of goods and services and possibly provoking inflation. They demanded incentives for new development in exchange for any changes in the tax system. The Municipal Council defended its proposal, arguing that the current tax structure was seriously inequitable because it punished smaller enterprises while offering advantages to larger ones.

The Municipal Council of San Salvador and the Trade and Industry Chamber of El Salvador formed a joint commission to investigate the complex issues involved in the proposed tax reform, and the preconditions such as updated cadastres, the legal framework and technical training that would be necessary. While no concrete mechanisms for implementing land and building taxation were incorporated into the discussion, it was significant that these key stakeholders reached consensus on the need for a property tax in the future.

Benefits of an International Perspective

In a precedent-setting meeting of public officials and private stakeholders in January 1999, the Lincoln Institute and the Planning Office of the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador (OPAMSS) examined many issues regarding the development and implementation of a property tax system. This was the third in a series of Institute-sponsored programs designed to share international expertise and to help develop a new framework for a more equitable tax system in El Salvador.

Particularly in a small country like El Salvador, an adequate property tax system can have positive and strategic effects not only on local finances but also on macro-economic policies and on the re-engineering of a country’s financial sector. Alven Lam, a fellow of the Lincoln Institute, explained that restructuring the taxation framework has been essential to allow some Asian countries, such as Japan, Thailand and Indonesia, to recuperate from their economic crises. The recent fiscal problems in Brazil and ongoing debate about the functioning of the financial sector in El Salvador added a sense of urgency to this discussion of the broader economic context of a local property tax.

The seminar also addressed the importance of integrating land and building taxation as a fundamental tool to promote effective urban land management. Vincent Renard of the Econometric Laboratory of the Polytechnic School in Paris commended the initiative taken by the San Salvador Municipal Council and other local governments to modify their taxation structures, but stressed that these policies can not be isolated from an overall understanding of real estate markets. He also criticized urban planning approaches, such as the current tendency in El Salvador, to over-regulate land use through legal measures without any link to land taxation and fiscal incentives.

A third area of concern to the policy debate was the political and economic implications of property taxation. Among other things, it is critical that those involved in establishing a property tax system consider the political culture of the society, the consolidation of municipal autonomy, the transparency of real estate markets, and the use of the property tax as a tool for economic and social development. Julio Piza, from Externado University in Bogota, described different applications of the property tax in Colombia. He highlighted a common problem, the difficulty of measuring the land and building tax bases due in large part to obsolete current cadastres and the lack of other land information systems.

Although discussion of property tax reform in El Salvador has been overshadowed by recent national elections, the new president has expressed interest in land and tax policy. Among the seminar participants were many municipal and national leaders from the political and business sectors who are committed to modernizing their municipal taxation and fiscal management programs. The fact that they met to openly discuss these difficult issues is a hopeful sign. Key factors for future progress include the political will to promote a local property tax, the continued involvement of the business community, and recognition that the tax is both a practical financial instrument to meet immediate needs and an important tool for economic growth and urban development.

A major challenge for El Salvador, as for other countries experiencing social and economic transitions, is establishment of equitable and effective provisions for property valuation and tax collection. Starting with a simple rate structure and gradually introducing more sophisticated instruments can ease the implementation process. Issues such as innovative urban land management and the possibility to capture increments in land value are also critical for the future fiscal growth of El Salvador.

Patricia Fuentes is subdirector of Urban Development Control and Mario Lungo is executive director of the Planning Office of the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador (OPAMSS).

Municipal Revenues

Metropolitan Area of San Salvador, 1993

Sources of revenue:

a) Municipal taxes 41%

b) Tariffs and user fees 36%

c) Transfers from central government 8%

d) Other municipal revenues 5%

e) Loans 4%

f) Other sources 6%

Revenues per capita (US $) $15.59

Capital investment per capita (US $) $1.04

Debt service as a percentage of total expenses 6.55%

Source: Indicadores Urbanos y de Vivienda, Vice Ministerio de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano, 1996, San Salvador.

Last October the Lincoln Institute sponsored the fourth annual symposium for recipients of David C. Lincoln Fellowships in Land Value Taxation (LVT). This fellowship program was established to provide funding for in-depth research by scholars and practitioners working on various aspects of the tax and to present a forum for continued learning and sharing among the fellows and Institute faculty.

The fellowship topics include theoretical or basic research as well as research on practical aspects of the administration and implementation of LVT in the U.S. and around the world. This focus on practicality is appropriate since these fellowships are named for David C. Lincoln, the chairman of the Lincoln Foundation and founding chairman of the Lincoln Institute, who has continually challenged the Institute and the fellows to answer such questions as, how can we get LVT put in place and how can we demonstrate the impact?

This year’s symposium presentations reflect the diversity of the work supported by the program. Richard England reported on his efforts to measure the feasibility of getting a two-rate tax adopted in New Hampshire (see page 8 of this newsletter). He developed a model to estimate the number of taxpayers who would gain or lose with various forms of the two-rate tax. His research suggests that to gain support from taxpayers a new two-rate tax needs to be coupled with some kind of tax credit.

David Brunori conducted a national survey of state legislators who sit on finance or tax committees to determine their familiarity with land value or two-rate tax schemes. To his surprise most were familiar with the two-rate tax and believed that a movement to use it would stimulate economic development. Given that favorable view toward LVT, he was hard pressed to explain why so few policy initiatives have moved in this direction.

Other fellows focused on LVT experiences outside the U.S. Frances Plimmer and Greg McGill reported on their updating of the classic case study of property values in the town of Whitstable in the United Kingdom. Riel Franzsen and William McCluskey reported on their cataloging of all of the LVT efforts in 37 of the 54 member states of the British Commonwealth. Yu-Hung Hong described the existing tax structure on property in the People’s Republic of China and suggested alternative schemes for introducing an expanded LVT system as part of the taxation reform presently being considered there.

On a more empirical track, Suzi Kerr reported on efforts to measure the revenue requirements of growing and declining communities in New Zealand, and Courtney Haff reported on econometric efforts to estimate land value in New York City. All of these papers will be available on the Lincoln Institute’s website when they have been completed.

The list of fellows and their research topics for 2003–2004 is shown on pages 16-17 of this newsletter. Again, the diversity of topics reflects the Institute’s continued support for investigations into viable experiments with the LVT and examples of how to measure the impact. I look forward to the results of this work and the discussion at the next symposium.

The content of the Institute’s work program has evolved significantly over the past two years, and its annual activities have increased by about half since 2004. Reflecting this evolution and growth, the Institute’s programs and staffing are also changing.

The former Department of Planning and Development has been replaced by two new departments. The Department of Planning and Urban Form, headed by Armando Carbonell, addresses planning and its relation to the form of the built environment with a focus on three themes: spatial externalities and multijurisdictional governance issues; the interplay of public and private interests in the use of land; and land policy, land conservation, and the environment. The Department of Economic and Community Development, headed by Rosalind Greenstein, connects planning to development and fiscal issues with a focus on four themes: the city, land, and the university; neighborhood planning and development; fiscal dimensions of planning; and urban economics and revitalization.

The Department of Valuation and Taxation, headed by Joan Youngman, continues its focus on land taxation, property taxation, and the valuation process within an expanded program. The main activities of the Department of International Studies continue to be its programs in Latin America and in China focusing on land and tax policy issues. Other international activities include work in Eastern Europe on administration of market value based property taxation, in South Africa on property taxation and land markets, and in Taiwan on infrastructure development and planning.

This year the Institute established a new position, Manager of Public Affairs, and Anthony Flint took up this work in late July. He will be responsible for disseminating information about the Institute’s products, findings, and activities, particularly with the media and through the Internet. He will develop the Institute’s Web site as an outreach tool, writing regular columns, making the site more interactive, and strengthening its capacity as a key Internet portal for those interested in land policy.

Anthony covered transportation, planning and development, architecture, and urban design as a reporter for the Boston Globe from 1989 to 2005. For the past year, he was Smart Growth Education Director at the Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development. While a visiting scholar at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), he wrote the book This Land: The Battle over Sprawl and the Future of America (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006) on the forces influencing urban growth in the United States. Anthony became familiar with the Institute as a Loeb Fellow at the GSD in 2000 and has since contributed to the Institute’s annual journalists program and authored an Institute working paper on density. A graduate of Middlebury College and Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, Anthony will continue to do research and writing.

The Institute also has been adapting its training programs to take advantage of the capabilities of the Internet. Several of the Institute’s basic courses have been made available for distance education and Internet-based instruction. These typically involve videotaped presentations that can be downloaded from the Internet or a CD. Examples include the introductory courses on conservation easements, mediation of land use disputes, and planning fundamentals. This shift has freed up resources for new classroom courses, such as one based on the book The Humane Metropolis, published this fall by University of Massachusetts Press in association with the Institute.

The Latin American Program has developed several Internet-based courses offered live with real-time instructor feedback on the students’ work. These courses on urban land policy and property taxation topics are presented in Spanish and Portuguese to participants in Latin America.

Finally, the Institute will soon launch a program of evaluations of land policy programs in the United States. One of the first of these will assess the performance of smart growth policies that have been applied to different degrees in many states. This work is part of a new Institute initiative to improve our knowledge of what works and why in land policy.

Daniel McMillen has a joint appointment in the Department of Economics and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois. He is also a visiting fellow in the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Before moving to Urbana-Champaign, he was a member of the economics departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, and Tulane University. McMillen received his Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern University in 1987.

Since 2005, McMillen has worked on a number of Lincoln Institute projects, including two David C. Lincoln Fellowships with Rachel Weber, a member of the Urban Planning and Policy Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also collaborated with Richard F. Dye of the University of Illinois on a series of Lincoln-sponsored projects on land valuation and assessment limitation measures.

McMillen has been co-editor of Regional Science and Urban Economics since 2007. He also serves on the editorial boards of other leading journals in urban economics, real estate, and regional science, and as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He directed the Center for Urban Real Estate at the University of Illinois at Chicago from 1999 to 2005, and has served on the board of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?

Daniel McMillen: I first came to the Lincoln Institute in 1989 for a conference on “Growth Management and Land Use Controls.” It was an honor to be invited there as a relatively new assistant professor and to have the chance to meet many leading urban and public finance economists. I returned for another conference in 1996. I was impressed by the quality of the research being conducted by and for the Lincoln Institute on land use, land and property taxation, and the regulation of land markets. When I had a sabbatical in 2005–2006, the Lincoln Institute seemed like an ideal place to work. I spent much of that year in Cambridge, and have been involved regularly ever since.

Land Lines: What was the first project you conducted for the Lincoln Institute?

Daniel McMillen: I began working with Richard F. Dye on a study of teardowns and land values in the Chicago metropolitan area. A teardown is a property that is purchased solely to replace the existing structure with a new one. Teardowns have been remarkably controversial because they drastically alter the character of long-established neighborhoods. In 2006 the National Trust for Historic Preservation declared Chicago to be the “epicenter” of teardown activity, so the city offered an ideal setting for such a study.

We collected data on sales and demolition permits for homes in Chicago and several suburbs. An assessment file including the structural characteristics of each home allowed us to test a key prediction of theoretical models of demolitions—that is, when a home is purchased as a teardown, it is valued only for the land on which it rests. Our results supported this theory by showing that structural characteristics did not influence the sale prices of teardown properties.

This study has important practical implications because it suggests that teardowns can be used to estimate land values in areas where many homes are being demolished and replaced by new structures. One of the impediments to a land tax is the difficulty of estimating land values in built-up areas where there are few sales of vacant land. Teardowns may help make land taxation feasible in large urban areas that are undergoing redevelopment.

Land Lines: What other research topics have you investigated?

Dan McMillen: I have worked on a series of projects with Rachel Weber analyzing property assessments in Chicago. In a paper published in the National Tax Journal, titled Thin Markets and Property Tax Inequities: A Multinomial Logit Approach, we developed a new approach for determining whether property assessments are regressive in the sense that assessment ratios tend to be lower for higher-priced properties. We use a statistical (logit) model to estimate the probability that a property will have an assessment ratio in the upper or lower end of the distribution rather than in the middle. Although we do find evidence of regressivity, we also find that assessments tend to be much more accurate in neighborhoods with a large number of sales. Thin markets—areas with few sales—have a much higher probability of both unusually high and unusually low assessment ratios.

In subsequent work to be published in the Public Finance Review, titled Ask and Ye Shall Receive? Predicting the Successful Appeal of Property Tax Assessments, we develop an empirical model of the appeals process for property assessments. We find that thin markets have many more appeals and a higher proportion of successful appeals than areas with many sales. Taxpayers who appeal their assessments tend to live in moderate-income neighborhoods in newer, larger homes with assessments that increased significantly since the previous reassessment year. In contrast, successful applicants tend to live in smaller, older homes and in neighborhoods that have experienced relatively slower rates of property appreciation.

Land Lines: What conferences have you organized for the Lincoln Institute?

Daniel McMillen: For several years, I have helped organize the conference “Recent Advances in Urban Economics and Public Finance,” at which many of the leading researchers in urban economics and public finance present new work. The conference provides the opportunity for authors to summarize their papers and receive useful feedback from an enthusiastic, knowledgeable audience.

The conference includes both established and emerging scholars. It was very important to me to meet recognized scholars when I was an assistant professor at the University of Oregon, and I want to return the favor by using these conferences to help junior scholars meet more established researchers.

This year Daphne Kenyon, another Lincoln Institute visiting fellow, and I formalized this mentoring goal by introducing a junior scholars program that matched young assistant professors with the editors of key urban economics and public finance journals, including Regional Science and Urban Economics, Public Finance Review, the Journal of Regional Science, Real Estate Economics, and the National Tax Journal. After a session with the full panel of editors, each junior scholar met individually with one of the editors, who provided comments on a working paper the scholar had prepared. The junior scholars came from a variety of universities and organizations, including the University of Michigan, the University of Southern California, the University of Oklahoma, Georgia State University, the University of Georgia, Winthrop University, Washington University, and the Federal Reserve Board.

Land Lines: How has your association with the Lincoln Institute influenced your research?

Daniel McMillen: I have published many papers that deal directly with issues of land use, land and property taxation, and land policies. My association with the Lincoln Institute has encouraged me to think more about the policy implications of my research and to expand its potential audience beyond academic economists.

For example, I wrote a paper on the costs and benefits of teardowns for Land Lines (July 2006) as a direct result of a presentation for the Lincoln Lecture Series. A surprising number of people in the audience were convinced that teardowns should be heavily regulated because they could never generate any benefits. However, teardowns may also offer new tax revenues, an improved housing stock, and perhaps even reduced urban sprawl. Economists become so used to thinking in terms of costs and benefits that they tend to take it for granted that others use the same framework to analyze issues. Although I think a strong case can be made for regulating teardowns, this kind of experience helps me realize how vital an economist’s perspective can be in shaping policies that lead to good outcomes.

The Lincoln Institute has also encouraged me to think about the implications of my research for assessment practices. When I presented my work on teardowns in an Institute-sponsored session at the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) conference in 2005, the participants were very interested in using teardowns to improve land assessments. They wanted to know what data would be required and what statistical procedures to use. This conference and subsequent contact with IAAO members provided inspiration and background for my work on assessment regressivity and assessment appeals.

My Lincoln Institute affiliation has also led to contacts with legislators and other policy makers. Richard Dye, David Merriman, and I produced a study for the Illinois Department of Revenue that analyzed the effects of Cook County’s cap on the growth rate of residential property assessments. This work motivated a 2007 conference on assessment limits held at the Institute where academics, local government officials, and state legislators heard presentations about the experience with assessment limits in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, and Minnesota.

One lesson from the conference was that assessment limits have important distributional effects that transfer taxes from fast-growing areas to those with low rates of appreciation, or from residences to commercial or industrial properties. This conclusion surprised many people who thought that assessment limits simply lowered property taxes for everyone. To share this work with a broader audience, Richard Dye and I wrote a Land Lines article (July 2007), titled Surprise! An Unintended Consequence of Assessment Limitations, in which we presented the algebra and explanations behind such policies.

Land Lines: What are your current projects for the Lincoln Institute?

Daniel McMillen: I am returning to my work on teardowns. I am working with Arthur O’Sullivan, professor of economics at Lewis & Clark College, to develop the implications of an options model of teardown investments. The basic implication is that the sales price of a property can be decomposed into the value of the land and the value of the structure, with the weights to each component depending on the probability that the structure will be demolished. Whereas land accounts for the entire value of a property when the structure will be demolished immediately, structural characteristics have more influence on the sales price when the owner is likely to live in the home for some time. We are now testing these implications using updated data on property sales in the Chicago area.

I am also extending my work on assessment practices by developing new statistical procedures to analyze the distribution of assessment ratios. My preliminary results suggest that the variance of assessment ratios is much higher at very low sales prices and that assessments tend to be more accurate for relatively high-priced properties. I am working to develop a set of computer programs that will make the analysis of assessment ratio distributions readily accessible to assessors and other practitioners.

We plan to continue our junior scholars program as a companion to the Urban Economics and Public Finance conference. These conferences play an important role in mentoring young scholars and in helping to introduce the Lincoln Institute to academic researchers, which my own experience shows can be a formative intellectual experience.

In most countries, government property is not liable for property taxes; indeed, the whole idea may be seen as a circular shifting of money (Bird and Slack 2004; Youngman and Malme 1994). The United Kingdom has taken a very different perspective recently. Regarding it as important that both government and local government occupiers are aware of the true cost of holding property, the UK insists on a system of notional rents and ensures liability for local property taxes.

From the enactment of the Poor Relief Act in 1601, the generally accepted starting date for the taxing of local property in the UK, until 2000 when changes were enacted, property occupied by the government or Crown was not subject to property tax or “rates.” However, the Crown did accept that it was appropriate to make some contribution to meet the costs of local services and paid ex gratia contributions in lieu of rates (CILORs). This process suffered from a number of problems: the contributions were voluntary; Crown property did not appear in the valuation lists; and the basis upon which the contributions were made lacked the rigor and transparency of valuation that applied to all other property.

The Local Government and Rating Act was introduced in 1997 for England, Scotland, and Wales (with an amendment in 1998 for Northern Ireland) to effectively place all Crown property on the same footing as all other taxable property, liable to be assessed for rates. These provisions came into effect from April 1, 2000. As a result, such iconic buildings as the Palace of Westminster and the Tower of London are now being valued in the same way as all other property for the first time.

Valuing Commercial Property

Valuation officers of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), a part of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), are responsible for compiling and maintaining commercial (nondomestic) property rating lists for England and Wales. The local assessors are responsible in Scotland, and the Land and Property Services have responsibility for Northern Ireland. Broadly speaking, the rateable value of a nondomestic property is based on the annual rent that it could have been let for on the open market at a standard date (the antecedent valuation date). For England and Wales, the antecedent date of the 2000 lists was April 1, 1998; for the 2005 lists it was April 1, 2003; and for the 2010 lists, which came into effect on April 1, 2010, it was April 1, 2008.

Table 1 shows the number of taxable properties in England and Wales and their total rateable (taxable) value. Comparisons with capital value-based property taxes are a little difficult because it is necessary to know the relevant yields to make the comparison, but even so it is clear the level of taxation is unusually high for a property tax. The tax level for England and Wales is approximately 45 percent, but this is on rental, not capital, values.

The UK government sets a separate uniform tax rate (poundage) for England known as the nondomestic rating multiplier. For Scotland and Wales, it is set by their respective assemblies, and for Northern Ireland each district council sets its own rate. This determines the sum payable on every pound sterling of rateable value to arrive at the full rates bill. Local authorities remain responsible for calculating the bills and collecting nondomestic rates payable on properties within the authority’s area. They do not, however, retain the rates they collect but pay them into a national pool (one each for England and Wales). The money in the pool is then redistributed to local authorities with special arrangements for the City of London.

Background on the Crown Exemption

Prior to the 2000 rating lists, certain properties occupied by the Crown, e.g., central government offices and Ministry of Defence establishments, were exempt from rating and did not appear in any rating list. The Crown did, however, make an ex gratia CILOR based on a notional rateable value.

The Crown was neither expressly mentioned in the Poor Relief Act of 1601, the original rating act sometimes referred to as The Statute of Elizabeth, nor in the General Rate Act 1967 that replaced it. As it was a principle of UK law that the Crown was not bound by an act of Parliament unless specifically mentioned, there was no liability for rates. Further, no rates could be imposed with respect to property occupied by its servants whose occupation amounted to occupation by the Crown. This position was upheld by Jones v. Mersey Docks 11 HL Cas. 443 (1865).

However, as far back as 1860, the government accepted the principle of the Crown paying something by way of ex gratia CILORs with respect to property occupied for public purposes. This practice was made uniform in 1874. The Treasury of the UK, by formal Minute, adopted the principle that property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with the other property in the parishes in which it was situated, having regard to its character in each case. The Treasury Minute established the Rating of Government Property Department (RGPD) to undertake the assessment of all government property with the intention of adopting in each case as far as possible the same principles as were applicable to the valuation of private property. Nineteenth-century case law established that the exemption applied only to property occupied by the Crown itself or its servants, but not to other property occupied for public purposes. Generally, therefore, the exemption applied to property occupied for the purposes of the central government and the Royal palaces and parks, and to other property occupied by servants of the Crown (for example, occupation by government ministers or by military personnel of Royal Naval, army, and Royal Air Force bases).

In 1896, a further Treasury Minute reaffirmed the principle of equal contribution and made certain concessions in order to carry it fully into effect. The concessions included periodical revaluation, punctual payment, and a contribution with respect to the Houses of Parliament.

The following were the main characteristics of the CILOR in the last few years of its existence:

• The Crown Property Unit (CPU) of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) was responsible for agreeing to the assessment and CILOR (following its absorption of the RGPD).
• CILOR payments were collected by rating authorities from the CPU.
• Valuations were carried out, and bills calculated, on exactly the same rules and methods as under the rates proper, taking account of any relevant rating reliefs.
• Local authorities included CILOR payments with other nondomestic rate income paid into the rating pool, and the combined payments were then redistributed to receiving authorities.

The CILOR arrangements differed from standard rating procedures in the following main respects:

• Contributions were, in theory, voluntary.
• Valuations originally decided by the RGPD, albeit after discussion with the local valuation officer, were not always at the same level as normal assessments.
• Crown bodies did not have the same rights as ratepayers to appeal against their valuations, and to have their appeal determined by an independent Valuation Tribunal.
• Because the Crown is, in constitutional theory, one and indivisible, the CILOR treatment of properties occupied by more than one Crown body differed from the usual treatment of rateable property in more than one occupation. For CILOR, a single valuation was normally carried out for the property as a whole, and a single bill was calculated and sent to the major occupier, who then recouped the appropriate proportion of the total payable from the minor occupiers. Under standard rates, separate valuations are usually carried out for each separately occupied part of the property, and each occupier receives a separate bill.

Rationale for Removal of the Crown Exemption

The government debated the removal of the Crown exemption as far back as World War II. The Central Valuation Committee, in a letter of January 21, 1947, to the Minister of Health, while in effect suggesting such a removal also stated that it had long been its view that the then-arrangements for the rating of property occupied by the Crown were in many respects unfair and unsatisfactory to local authorities, who at the time set their own rate levels. In the 1950s, the English local authority associations expressed their dissatisfaction with the Crown exemption and went so far as to say that the manner of assessing CILORs was completely arbitrary and frequently worked to the detriment of local authorities. They estimated the rateable value of Crown property in England and Wales in 1952 to be around £14 million out of a total rateable value of about £341 million, which would equate to £2.2 billion based on levels of value at the 2010 revaluation.

In the mid-1990s the government considered several drivers for change:

• The Crown’s exemption from rates served no clear public policy objective, since Crown occupiers were, in any case, expected to make CILORs.
• It was the government’s general policy, as stated in the Citizens Charter White Paper (1991), that general Crown immunity should be removed progressively as legislative opportunities became available, so that the Crown should in general be subject to regulatory and enforcement arrangements on the same basis as others.
• The lack of appeal rights for Crown occupiers was unsatisfactory in principle.

The Local Government and Rating Act 1997 made provision to end the Crown exemption from nondomestic rates in England, Wales, and Scotland, effective April 1, 2000. Rating authorities would collect rates on Crown properties directly from the departments concerned, rather than from the CPU. These authorities also would be able to proceed with enforcement proceedings against the Crown, as they would with other ratepayers. Although this would happen in only the rarest of cases, rating authorities would in principle be able to take steps against a government department to obtain a liability order for unpaid rates if the need arose.

It has been suggested by the rating profession in the UK that, since rating is a tax, valuing and taxing properties occupied by public bodies is a waste of public resources. Properties that might fall in this category include those occupied by the Ministry of Defence, National Health Service, and local authorities. Superficially, valuing and taxing these properties may appear unjustified. The difficulty is that many activities traditionally carried out by central or local governments are now also performed in the private sector. Leisure centers are just one example. Exempting local authority properties from rates when they compete directly with the private sector could be argued to be unfair as it would give the public sector a fiscal advantage.

While the public sector occupies other buildings whose current use clearly does not compete with private business, it is difficult to justify exempting some publicly occupied properties and including others. The original justification for rating buildings occupied by public sector bodies (including the removal of Crown exemption in 2000) was to establish a level playing field, ensure that the costs of occupation were fully recognized, and make transparent the contribution of public sector bodies to the cost of providing local services.

The Valuation of Iconic Buildings

The removal of the Crown exemption precipitated the need to value a wide variety of unusual properties. Rating in the UK is an occupier’s not an owner’s tax and is based on broad actual use rather than highest and best use. Very old buildings often have to be valued, though many of them have been modernized and used for diverse purposes, such as offices, commercial mixed uses, or, at least in part, tourist attractions.

The traditional comparison valuation approach could be made with similarly used properties to enable determination of an indicative rental value for some structures, but for others the task was much more difficult. For example, Somerset House on the River Thames is a purpose-built office block, but it is the world’s first purpose-built government office block, dating back to 1776, and it has been used in commercial filmmaking, and so is difficult to compare to other buildings.

Valuing unusual properties is not confined to Crown properties or those for which the rental comparison method cannot be used because there are no relevant comparisons. In such cases, the use of the Receipts and Expenditure (R&E) or income method may be a more reliable guide to assessing the market rental value of a property. This method is appropriate if the property to be valued is commercial in nature or has a degree of monopoly, and an occupier would be motivated primarily by the prospect of profit in its use of the property and, indeed, makes a profit (Bond and Brown 2006).

If neither the comparison nor R&E methods can be used, then the Contractors Basis or cost method is applied where the property is provided primarily for public purposes and is not occupied for commercial profit, or where the property concerned is commercial but it is not a profit center with its own accounts. In both cases the occupier (or owner) would be prepared to incur the cost of a replacement property to carry on the use of the property.

In addition to the problem of valuation is the UK complexity of having a separate tax on domestic property. In England, Scotland, and Wales this is the Council Tax, but in Northern Ireland the system is one of Domestic Rates. If any part of a property is used for domestic purposes, as defined in the legislation, then that use is assessed for the domestic tax. Thus, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, both royal palaces, have a rating assessment on the non-domestic, commercial element and a council tax on the domestic sections of the buildings.

Palace of Westminster

The Palace of Westminster, also known as the Houses of Parliament, is a royal palace and the meeting place of the two chambers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Palace is the center of political life, and Westminster has become a metonym for the UK Parliament and the Westminster system of government for which it is named. The Elizabeth Tower, often referred to by the name of its main bell, Big Ben, is an iconic landmark of London. The Gothic Revival architecture by Sir Charles Barry dates from only 1840, but the remarkable Westminster Hall with its hammer beam roof dates from 1097.

The Palace of Westminster has been part of a World Heritage Site since 1987. The Palace had a rateable value of £14,700,000 in the local 2010 rating list (£5,500,000 in the 2000 rating list). If the standard tax rate of 45.8 percent is applied, then the tax liability ignoring any reliefs would be around £6,730,000 per year. The assessment actually combines four buildings: the Palace, Portcullis House, 1 Derby Gate, and the Norman Shaw buildings. All parts are valued on the comparative method with respect to offices, with allowances for layout and size if appropriate. In the case of the Palace the two chambers are valued at 65 percent of the main rate per square meter. There is a further end allowance to reflect the overall amount of floor space in the property.

Buckingham Palace

Buckingham Palace is the official London residence and principal workplace of HM Queen Elizabeth II, both with respect to her position as British monarch and head of state of many countries around the world, and as head of the Commonwealth. Located in the City of Westminster, the palace is a setting for state occasions and royal hospitality. Originally known as Buckingham House, the building that forms the core of today’s palace was a large townhouse built for the Duke of Buckingham in 1705. Buckingham Palace became the official royal palace of the British monarch on the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837.

Buckingham Palace is used in part as one of the monarch’s residences but consists mainly of offices. Recently limited commercial use has been introduced, as part of the building is open to visitors. The commercial portion has a rateable value of £1,300,000 in the local 2010 rating list. It is valued using two methods. First, the R&E or income method is used to reflect the commercial component (approximately 400,000 people visited during 2011). The property is open for 63 days per year with limited opening hours, so the relevant receipts are annualized, and 5 percent is added to reflect the fact that longer opening hours would generate more ticket sales. The trading accounts as published show that the rateable value equated to 6.3 percent of Fair Maintainable Receipts. Second, the Contractors or cost method is used for the Queen’s Gallery. The residential component of the palace has 775 rooms, including 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 19 state rooms, and 78 bathrooms. In 2011–2012 it had a council tax bill of £1,369.

Tower of London

Her Majesty’s Royal Palace and Fortress, commonly known as the Tower of London, is a historic castle on the north bank of the River Thames in central London. It dates to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, and the White Tower, which gives the entire castle its name, was built by William the Conqueror in 1078. The Tower has served variously as an armory, a treasury, a prison, a menagerie, the home of the Royal Mint, and a public records office. Now it is home to the Crown Jewels and is one of the country’s most popular tourist attractions, having some 2.55 million visitors in 2011.

It is protected as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (and by some very high walls and elaborate alarm systems). It is valued by the R&E method, due to its particular value as a tourist attraction, and the rateable value equates to approximately 4.7 percent of fair maintainable receipts. For the local 2010 rating list the property had a rateable value of £1,790,000 (for the 2000 rating list the value was £1,180,000).

Stonehenge

Stonehenge is a prehistoric stone circle on Salisbury Plain comprising a megalithic rock monument of 150 enormous stones set in a circular pattern dating back to 3000 BC. While there are larger stone circles in the world, including one nearby at Avebury, Stonehenge is unique because the Sarsen stones are surmounted by lintels connecting to one another and once formed a complete, connected ring. Stonehenge was built over a period of 1,500 years. It is a World Heritage Site attracting some one million visitors per year. Given the commercial operation of the property, it has been valued using the R&E method at a rateable value of £700,000.

Summary

Crown-owned and occupied property is currently valued in accordance with normal valuation methods and principles. The removal of the Crown exemption has resulted in the “correct” valuation of unique and often iconic historic buildings. The valuation methods applied have to reflect the use of the buildings and, where rental evidence is limited, the cost-based approach may be required. This latter approach brings with it significant difficulties when applied to buildings that are several hundred years old. In such circumstances valuers have to be creative, artistic, and scientific in their valuations.

About the Authors

William McCluskey is a researcher in the Built Environment Research Institute, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK.

David Tretton FRICS FIRRV is a visiting professor in the School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK. He was formerly Head of Profession and Director of Rating at the Valuation Office Agency, London, and is currently the technical editor of the RICS Valuation–Professional Standards (Red Book).

The authors thank Patrick Bond, BSc FRICS Dip. Rating IRRV (Hons), head of Commercial, Leisure and Civics National Specialists Unit, Valuation Office Agency, London.

References

Bird, R. M., and E. Slack. 2004. International handbook of land and property taxation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bond, P., and P. Brown. 2006. Rating valuation: Principles and practice. London: Estates Gazette.

Citizens Charter White Paper. 1991. Citizens Charter Open Government, Cm 2290, HMSO, London.

Youngman, J. M., and J. H. Malme. 1994. An international survey of taxes on land and buildings. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

Strengthening Municipal Fiscal Health in China

Since 2013, Zhi Liu has been a senior research fellow and director of the China Program at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC). Prior, Zhi was lead infrastructure specialist at the World Bank, where he worked for 18 years, with operational experiences in a number of developing countries.

Zhi received a B.S. in economic geography from Dr. Sun Yat-Sen University (China), a M.S. in city and regional planning from Nanjing University (China), and a Ph.D. in urban planning from Harvard University.

LAND LINES: The Lincoln Institute recently initiated a global research agenda on municipal fiscal health. This effort arises from the recognition that a number of cities in the United States and in many other countries including China suffer financial hardship. What is the nature of municipal fiscal distress in China?

ZHI LIU: It’s very different from the financial troubles faced by cities in the United States. The two countries are at very different stages of urbanization. While the U.S. is highly urbanized, with more than 80 percent of citizens living in urban areas, according to the 2010 census, China is only halfway through the urbanization process. Today, 750 million Chinese citizens live in cities, accounting for 55 percent of the total population. By 2050, the urban population is expected to reach 1.1 billion, or 75 percent of the total population. Over the last two decades, with the exception of a few mining cities, almost all municipalities have seen rapid population growth and spatial expansion, generating a significant demand for public investment in urban infrastructure.

In China, the main sources of funding for urban infrastructure investment are revenues from land concessions and local borrowing from commercial banks, often using land as collateral. Urban land is owned by the state, and rural land is collectively owned by villages. The Land Administration Law stipulates that only the state has the power to convert rural land into urban use. This sets the stage for the municipal governments to take rural land for urban development through the land concession process. As it goes, municipal governments expropriate rural land, service it with infrastructure, and sell the land use rights to real estate developers. The compensation to farmers for the farmland taken is low, based on the land’s agricultural production value instead of market value for urban use. When the demand for real estate development is high, the land concession fees are bid high, and the municipal governments stand to collect a huge amount of revenues. For the last 10 years, revenues from land concessions have accounted for more than one-third of total local fiscal revenues.

Moreover, municipal governments further expand their financing capacity by using land assets as collateral to secure commercial loans from commercial banks. Before a recent amendment, the Chinese Budget Law did not permit local governments to borrow. However, most municipal governments bypassed the law by creating their own local financing vehicles—known as urban development investment corporations (UDICs)—that borrowed commercial loans or issued corporate bonds for the governments. The size of outstanding local debts has grown rapidly over the last few years, reaching at least one-third of the GDP now.

The land-based financing mechanism has helped municipal governments in China raise a significant amount of funds for capital investment. However, the success has also created incentive for municipal governments to rely on land concessions and UDICs too heavily. Today, China’s economy is growing more slowly than before, and the mechanism is running out of steam in many localities where conversion of rural land for urban use exceeds the real demand. Some cities have borrowed much more than they can repay, leaving them heavily indebted.

Many empirical studies, including some funded by the Lincoln Institute, find that China’s land-based financing mechanism is one of the main causes of other urban issues that we face today. Skyrocketing housing prices, growing local debts, excessive land-taking, growing tension between the farmers and municipal governments over land-taking, and widening gaps of income and wealth distribution between urban and rural populations are among the major issues.

LL: The international mass media has been reporting on these issues. How will China address them?

ZL: There is a high level of consensus on the root causes of the problems. In November 2013, the central government announced a set of reforms, and a few are directly related to urbanization policy and municipal finance. For example, the scope of land expropriation will be narrowed to the confine of public purposes, and villages are allowed to develop their land for urban use under the premise that it conforms to planning. The reforms also call for acceleration of property tax legislation; reform of hukou, the household residential registration system, to help farmers become urban residents; and government efforts to make basic urban public services available to all permanent residents in cities, including all rural-to-urban migrants.

LL: What are the implications of hukou reform on municipal finance?

ZL: The government is phasing out China’s longstanding hukou system, and the implications for municipal finance will be significant. Hukou was designed to identify a citizen as a resident of a certain locality, but for several decades the government used the system to control rural-to-urban migration. A rural hukou holder could not become an urban hukou holder without the government’s approval. Without urban hukou, a rural migrant worker is not eligible for public services provided by the urban governments.

Since the economic reform, the expanding urban economy has absorbed a large number of rural-to-urban migrant workers. Earlier, I mentioned China’s urbanization rate of 55 percent and urban population of 750 million. These numbers include the 232 million rural migrants who stay in cities for more than half a year. If they were excluded from the calculation, the level of urbanization would be just 38 percent. Due to their rural hukou status, however, migrant workers don’t have access to many services enjoyed by urban hukou holders, despite the fact that many have labored and lived in cities for years. Municipal governments determine the extent of many urban public services—such as public schools and affordable housing—according to the number of urban hukou holders inside the municipal jurisdiction. Phasing out hukou would significantly increase the fiscal burden to the municipal governments for public service provision. Some scholars in China estimate that the cost of providing full urban public services to each rural migrant would be at least RMB 100,000 (roughly $16,000 U.S.). The total outlays for all current rural migrants would be at least RMB 23 trillion (about $3.8 trillion U.S.).

LL: China is introducing the residential property tax. What is the status of that initiative?

ZL: The government is drafting the first national property tax law as part of the ongoing reform of public finance. China is one of only a handful of countries without a local property tax. The current taxation system relies heavily upon taxes on businesses and transactions, and very little upon taxes on household income and wealth. In a more urbanized China with a wealthier population who own residential properties, the property tax would be a more viable source of municipal revenues. Today, 89 percent of urban households own one or more residential units, and the value of those properties has much to do with urban public services. Property tax will allow cities to tax urban residential properties whose value would benefit from the improved public services made possible by property tax revenues. It should also fill part of the fiscal gap left by the expected reduction of revenues from land concessions. However, property tax will not be a major source of municipal revenues any time soon. It may take one or two more years for the National People’s Congress to pass the new law. It would also take perhaps two to three years for cities to establish the property database and assessment and administration system.

LL: It must be tough for cities to deal with declining revenues from land concessions without an immediate alternative—especially as they are coping with growing local debt, which has been widely reported. How will Chinese cities get out of this situation?

ZL: The situation is indeed tough. China’s economy is slowing down. The real estate sector is no longer as hot as it was in the last 10 years, resulting in lower demand for land and thus lower revenues from land concessions for municipal governments. Cities are now facing a fiscal gap. One possible way to fill the gap would be local government borrowing. However, as I mentioned earlier, many cities are indebted and have little capacity to borrow further. In fact, most cities in China do not have adequate capacity for debt management. The newly amended budget law permits provincial-level governments to issue bonds within the limit set by the State Council, but also closes the door on other forms of local government borrowing. Currently, the central government actively promotes infrastructure financing through public-private partnerships (PPP). While this is a good move, it won’t be sufficient to fill the infrastructure financing gap, as PPP is suitable mainly for infrastructure projects with a strong revenue flow. There are many other urban infrastructure projects that generate little or no revenues. In the long term, I believe that China should actively establish a municipal government bond market to channel funds from institutional investors to municipal infrastructure investment and enable local governments to access commercial loans based on creditworthiness. To do so, municipal governments need to develop institutional capacity on several fronts, such as local debt management, capital improvement planning, multiyear financial planning, and municipal infrastructure asset management.

LL: Is PLC’s work relevant to the current reform?

ZL: The PLC was jointly established by the Lincoln Institute and Peking University in 2007. By the time I arrived, in 2013, the center had developed its reputation as one of China’s premier research and training institutions on urban development and land policy issues. The center supports a number of activities, including research, training, academic exchange, policy dialogue, research fellowship, demonstration projects, and publication. We focus on five core themes—property taxation and municipal finance, land policy, urban housing, urban development and planning, and urban environment and conservation. Over the last few years, our research projects have touched upon land-based finance, local debts, housing prices, infrastructure capital investment and finance, and other topics relevant to municipal fiscal health. We have also provided training to Chinese government agencies on the international experiences of property tax assessment and administration. I would say that our work is highly relevant to the current reform.

Implementation of the new comprehensive policy reforms is generating considerable demand for international knowledge and policy advice in the China Program’s focus areas, especially property taxation and municipal finance. We plan to initiate a pilot demonstration project with one or two selected cities in China, to support the institutional capacity required for the development of long-term municipal fiscal health. Our team has started a study to develop a set of indicators to measure municipal fiscal health for Chinese cities. It is the right time for us to initiate this agenda in China.

It is with great sadness that we announce that Arlo Woolery passed away on February 28, 2002, at his home in Sun City West, Arizona.

Arlo brought zest, courtesy and unfailing curiosity to all of his endeavors over 82 years. Even before graduation from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, in 1943, he turned his gift for public speaking to early success as a radio broadcaster. He provided play-by-play radio descriptions of baseball games, complete with sound effects for hits and cheering crowds, guided only by wire service score reports. Later he held several executive positions in radio and television, dealing both with broadcasting, equipment manufacturing and the first development of cable television networks.

He became an expert on public utility regulation and valuation, earning the Certified Assessment Evaluator (CAE) designation from the International Association of Assessing Officers and serving as chairman of its education committee. He was an expert witness in numerous utility valuation cases and taught in the annual Wichita State University program on railroad and utility valuation for many years. The Supreme Court of Utah reflected the respect with which he was regarded when it described him as a “well-educated, long experienced and highly qualified appraiser.” From 1967 to 1976 he served as director of the Property Tax Program for the state of Arizona, dealing with issues of valuation and tax administration and taking the lead in the development of computer-assisted mass appraisal.

Arlo was the first executive director of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, from 1974 to 1986, and upon retirement was named the Archibald M. Woodruff Fellow. He led the Institute’s move to Cambridge and its establishment as a center for education on land use and land-related tax issues. He organized and participated in numerous international symposiums on property taxation, land policy and computer-assisted valuation. He assisted in the development of the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (formerly the Land Reform Training Institute) in Taiwan and served on its Board of Directors from 1975 to 2000. He also wrote and edited many books, including The Art of Valuation (1978); Introduction to Computer Assisted Valuation (1985); Property Tax Principles and Practice (1989); and Valuation of Railroad and Utility Property (1992).

“Arlo’s legacy to the Lincoln Institute is its solid academic underpinnings,” notes Kathryn J. Lincoln, Chairman of the Board. “Even after his official retirement, Arlo remained involved with the Lincoln Foundation, and his continuing leadership and teaching at the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training were instrumental in the development of that Lincoln program. We shall miss his wisdom and guidance.”