SHARE
The study of property taxation in Europe offers special challenges because each country has a different definition of land and property, and a different approach to local property taxation. The term property often includes both land and buildings, but may also include plants and machinery as well as certain possessions, such as automobiles. In Denmark, for example, separate taxes may be levied on the land and property elements of a single holding.
Among the 41 counties in our study, we identified 61 different forms of local taxation. Most are based on annual value, usually assessed on a capital or rental basis, and are payable annually. While most countries tax the sale of property at the state level, the Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain levy such taxes locally. Yet, amid such diversity, a basic central pattern emerges. Each county, except Malta, operates some form of annual property tax on the use or occupation of land and/or property, usually levied at the local level, and the revenues contribute to the provision of local services.
Tax Reform and the European Union
Over the last 10 years France, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have either completed or are in the process of completing substantial reforms to their taxation systems. Other countries have undertaken more minor reforms. Even some emerging democracies are reviewing and reforming their relatively new taxation systems in light of changes elsewhere. No individual tax exists in isolation, and all are affected by larger fiscal, economic and political developments. The reform of one tax will often have consequential effects on others, and property taxation in all its forms is no exception.
One impetus to tax reform in Europe is the European Union (EU). Fifteen of the countries in our study are members, and many other countries are in various stages of being considered for membership. Many countries are taking this opportunity to reform and improve their tax administration systems and to make their taxation rates competitive with those of other member states. Tax harmonization is not one of the declared aims of the EU, although it may be a natural consequence of many EU polices.
The main incentive for tax reform in Europe is coming from the states themselves. In one of the first signs of the problems caused by traditional national taxation systems, the Ministry of Finance in the Netherlands noted in the early 1990s that not only were businesses locating in the most tax-favorable areas but they also were buying goods and services from other countries where tax rates and other costs were lower. The close proximity of the Netherlands to Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg, as well as the good transport links between the countries, exacerbated the situation.
The introduction of the Single European Market has opened internal markets to foreign competition with the removal of trade barriers and the abolition of customs duties between member states. Business competitiveness now depends primarily on efficiency and the amount of taxation imposed by the national government, rather than on state aid and trade policies.
Approaches to Local Taxation
The Taxpayer
The majority of property taxes are payable by the owner. Of the 51 taxes we studied, 29 identified the owner as the taxpayer and 12 are paid by the occupier; the remaining 10 are sales-based taxes. The occupier figure was distorted because the United Kingdom accounted for 50 percent of this figure, due to differences in the implementation of its local taxes. In the Netherlands both parties can be taxed at different amounts. For sales-related taxes the results were less clear, with the taxpayer being the seller in half the cases and the purchaser in the other half.
Sources of Valuation Information
Many countries have some form of computerized cadastral system to record property-related information, and as part of the assessment process different levels of government usually exchange information. The nature and implementation of such systems vary considerably, from a series of different registers administered at various levels of government to a single register administered nationally.
The rights of the taxpayer to centrally held information also differ among countries. Some provide no rights to any information, while others provide notice whenever a new valuation or alteration is made. In some cases, valuation and comparable evidence may be made available at the request of the taxpayer.
Bases of Valuation
Three alternative approaches for the valuation bases are used most frequently. The Capital Value Approach is normally based on the open market value of the property at a specified baseline date, which may be a current date such as the start of the tax year. Sweden designates a date two years before the tax year. This approach has the advantage of giving valuation authorities more time to consider all the evidence available before arriving at their final valuations. The open market value is usually defined on the basis of a property’s best and/or highest value.
The Rental Value Approach is based on the open market rental value at a specified date. England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland specify a baseline date some time before the new values come into effect, as in Sweden. The open market rental value may be restricted by assumptions as to changes of use and alterations. The rationale is that the tax is levied on the occupier and the amount of tax is based on the current use of the property, not its potential value.
Properties not normally bought and sold in the market require alternative approaches to valuation. For example, the use of a revenue (or accounts) approach has been adopted in England and Wales for many types of leisure-related property, and its use is expected to increase. The cost approach, related to the cost of construction, also is widely accepted in England and Wales and in other European countries.
The Overall or Unit Approach relates to a property’s size. The tax is levied at a prescribed rate per square meters or per unit, which may vary depending on the predominant use of the property. These rates may be loosely based on rental or capital values, but are more often an arbitrary rate fixed by the appropriate taxation authority. In 1997 the Netherlands moved away from such a system in favor of a market-related capital value approach. Many new democracies have adopted the unit approach due to a lack of property information, a limited and restricted property market, and insufficient resources to enable the development of alternative systems. It is anticipated that many of these countries will move to a value-based system when resources and circumstances permit.
A number of other approaches are used under special circumstances. One is the capital value banding approach adopted for the valuation of residential property for the Council Tax in England, Wales and Scotland. In this approach property is ascribed to various value bands rather than valuing each individual property precisely. Another example is the local business tax, which includes the value of the property plus in the case of France a percentage of salaries and in the case of Spain and Switzerland the business profits.
Revaluation of the Tax Base
One of the key factors in examining European property tax systems is whether the valuations on which the tax is charged are up-to-date. Our research identified a very mixed picture: some countries have not revalued their tax bases for many years and others undertake revaluations regularly, every four or five years (see Table 1). Many countries have either no provision for regular revaluations or have postponed revaluations so often that their tax base bears little resemblance to current market values.
Indexation
Many countries have attempted to overcome the problems associated with infrequent revaluations by some form of indexation. Those countries performing annual revaluations may implement them through actual annual revaluations, indexation of an earlier revaluation or self-assessment declarations by the taxpayer. While annual indexation between regular revaluations every few years may ensure a relatively accurate tax base, its use becomes more questionable when the base has not been updated for 10 or 20 years. The position is made far worse in countries where the property market is changing rapidly, especially in major cities and towns. Any adopted index needs to be closely related to the property market in that location and to the specific property type. In most cases, however, the index is a single figure applied across the entire country and for all types of property.
Exemptions and Reliefs
Exemptions can be considered from two viewpoints: the nature of the property or the nature of the taxpayer. In addition, some countries have introduced arrangements that place a ceiling on the amount of tax payable. Some common features relating to the types of properties for which some form of relief may be granted are:
Relief to taxpayers takes many forms and can include:
Calculating the Amount of Tax
The simplest systems for calculating tax payments adopt a given tax per square meter occupied. Once the area of the property is agreed, it is a relatively simple matter to apply a given tax rate to that area. In some countries, the assessed value must be multiplied by an index or co-efficient and then by a locally determined rate that can vary depending on the size of the authority levying the charge. In France, the situation is even worse for the business tax, where a series of limitations have to be calculated to ascertain whether a ceiling or cap applies to the taxable amount.
Appeal Systems
Most countries have a system by which the taxpayer may challenge the tax assessment or valuation, although that action generally does not postpone the payment of the tax. In some cases the first step is an informal approach to the authority, which may be able to resolve the dispute without the need for more formal action. Where a formal approach is adopted, the appeal may be dealt with as part of the general tax appeal process through the normal tax tribunals and courts, or it may be handled outside the normal tax system, often in courts and tribunals established for the purpose.
Tax Collection and Payment
In many countries taxes are collected by the national tax authority, often as part of the income tax process. This method has the advantage of being linked with national exemptions and benefits; the resulting tax is usually payable over the whole tax year. Under the second common method, the tax is paid directly to the relevant taxing authority, sometimes in installments.
Conclusion
European countries are constantly reviewing their tax systems and adopting the best features of other systems. This presents special challenges to a survey such as ours, but also enhances its potential impact by allowing comparative analysis to influence new legislation. One very important conclusion at this early stage of the research project is the importance of keeping the tax base up-to-date. This not only simplifies the entire valuation and collection process but also ensures a tax base that is more acceptable and understandable to taxpayers. During this year we propose to widen our research and complete data collection on other European countries. In addition, we will attempt to compare the amounts of revenue raised by each type of taxation and analyze them within the context of each country’s local government and finance system.
Peter K. Brown is professor of property taxation at Liverpool John Moores University, a frequent author and a regular speaker on valuation, rating and taxation matters. Moira Hepworth is head of research at the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV), based in London. The authors are joint recipients of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation. This article is based on their first year of research and their recent working paper.
Related Publication
Peter K. Brown and Moira Hepworth. 2000. “A Study of European Land Tax Systems.” Lincoln Institute Working Paper. 156 pages.
SHARE
Public investment in urban areas often results in increased land value that benefits only a small group of private owners. In a pioneering initiative, the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, is using the property tax as an instrument for capturing land value increments, deterring land speculation and promoting rational urban development.
Economic and Social Context
Porto Alegre is the capital and largest city of Brazil’s southernmost state, Rio Grande do Sul. With a population of 1.5 million inhabitants and approximately 450,000 real estate units in 1994, city officials estimated a shortfall of more than 50,000 residential properties. However, major economic and social problems limited the city’s ability to provide housing for low- and middle-income families.
As in many developing countries with unstable economic cycles, land is a major means of concentrating wealth in Brazilian cities. In Porto Alegre, the existence of large undeveloped sites near the city center contributes to urban sprawl on the periphery. The major factor responsible for this situation is land speculation by wealthy landowners who hold large vacant sites and wait for a favorable moment to undertake investments or to sell their sites at huge profits.
As low-income families are pushed to the periphery, their segregation leads to increased social exclusion and demands for public services. However, the provision of basic infrastructure, such as public transport services on the long routes between the periphery and the commercial, industrial and entertainment centers, requires large investments from the government.
City officals in Porto Alegre had set a primary goal to provide high quality urban services for the outlying community, including basic infrastructure, education, public transport, street cleaning and security services. However, a financial diagnosis of the city’s revenue alerted authorities to the scarcity of resources for such investment. In contrast, many districts in more central areas were well supplied with infrastructure, equipment and services, and they had lower population densities than were called for in the city’s urban development plan.
Speculation was clearly impeding land development, but officials believed the political atmosphere seemed favorable for change. After a period in which government authorities faced chronic inflation in Brazil, an economic stabilization program was introduced in July 1994. Before the economic plan, inflation was running at astonishing annual rates of 7,000 percent. Since the introduction of the plan, average rates of inflation ranged between 0.7 and 1.7 percent a month. When the economy was measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it showed annual positive growth rates since 1993. Local government was confident that the moment was ideal for recovering the investment and productive activities that had been paralyzed during the previous high-inflation period.
In summary, the following factors encouraged Porto Alegre’s initiative to use the property tax as an instrument for simultaneously capturing increased land value, deterring land speculation, and promoting social fairness and economic growth:
Government Actions
The Brazilian Constitution (1988) defines the property tax as a tax on urban land and buildings and specifies that it can be used as an instrument of urban policy to promote the rational use of land to generate social benefits to the community at large. This provision allowed Porto Alegre to undertake the following actions:
Effectiveness of the Initiative
The legislation was promulgated at the end of 1993 and the government started to implement it in 1994. The proposal was supported by both ruling and opposition party members of the City Council, which is responsible for approving decisions on matters of municipal legislation.
As of October 1997, the initiative has not yet achieved its desired results. Only five of the 120 vacant sites are being developed. The landowners of 50 properties are paying the property tax at the progressive rate. Three of the properties were removed from the list because they had been incorrectly included in the first place due to inaccurate records about their physical characteristics.
The development status of the remaining 62 properties has not been defined. Some are owned by wealthy and politically powerful landowners who appealed to the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of the measures undertaken by the city government. Indeed, two landowners (A and B) who hold nearly 44 percent of the vacant land are appealing, and other landowners seem to be waiting for the judiciary outcome to make their own decisions. (See chart.)
Evaluating the effectiveness of Porto Alegre’s property tax initiative will be possible only after the judiciary decisions on the matter are pronounced, but other crucial gains derived from the experience have already guaranteed its success. The legislation has generated intense debate at the national and local level regarding political and private rights, property rights and public interest. The experience has also been used as an example to make other government authorities aware of their responsibilities to promote the rational use of urban land.
In Brazil, cultural and economic factors still seem to encourage land speculation rather than productive activities, and the difficulty in establishing boundaries between public interest and private rights is, indeed, complex. However, the pioneering actions undertaken in Porto Alegre represent an important step towards controlling private speculation and promoting responsible urban development. Similar initiatives elsewhere now have a greater potential for becoming effective alternatives to achieve fairness in the distribution of public resources with favorable social benefits to the community.
Claudia M. De Cesare works for the Porto Alegre City Council and is a Ph.D. candidate at the Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford, England.
SHARE
Thomas A. Jaconetty is the chief deputy commissioner of the Board of Review (formerly the Board of Appeals) of Cook County, Illinois. During the past 24 years he has been involved in the disposition or review of taxes on more than 600,000 parcels of real estate. He is a member of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO); the Chicago, Illinois State (ISBA) and American Bar Associations; the Justinian Society of Lawyers; and many other professional associations. He has served as a member and chair of the ISBA State and Local Taxation Section Council and contributed to the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Recodification Project.
A certified review appraiser and formerly an arbitrator for the Circuit Court of Cook County, Jaconetty has authored numerous articles and chapters for legal and taxation publications, edited three books and is working on a fourth. He has lectured at or moderated many educational programs on property taxation and assessment administration, and has published over a dozen articles on those topics. In 1998 he was appointed to the Planning Committee of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, and he served as conference chairman for the past two years.
Land Lines: How did you first become involved with the Lincoln Institute?
Thomas Jaconetty: I was familiar with the Institute’s work through its presentations at the annual conferences of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) and various other educational seminars. In 1994 the chairman of the National Conference of State Tax Judges, Ignatius MacLellan of the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals, invited me to attend the conference after reviewing articles I had written on “Highest and Best Use” and “Valuation of Federally Subsidized Housing.” I found the experience invigorating, challenging and intellectually stimulating. The conference was and continues to be the best seminar in which I am involved each year, and I attend quite a few.
LL: As the past chairman, how do you see the role of the National Conference?
TJ: For 25 years the conference has functioned as a clearinghouse of ideas for officials exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers over tax cases for statewide or regional jurisdictions. Noted authorities in the field, state tax court judges and officials of established tax courts are drawn together in an informal, collegial environment. The conference encourages improved decision making, the exchange of data and resources, the analysis of complex legal issues, and an avenue for a free-flowing interchange of ideas. The personal and professional relationships are open, friendly and dynamic, and there is plenty of room for divergent opinion, eclectic thought and agreement to disagree.
The Planning Committee of about 15 regular participants develops annual programs, and the rest of the members are actively involved with making presentations, offering suggestions, working on committees, attending the sessions and contributing to the overall educational experience. The annual fall conference is the most significant opportunity for formal interaction, but ongoing discussions are supported by the use of e-mail, the Lincoln Web site and the members’ professional involvement in other organizations.
LL: Why is it important for tax adjudicators to have this forum?
TJ: We are surrounded by ever-changing ideas and theories that we must balance against time-honored principles of taxation, complex economic relationships and the expectations of government. Each state has individual statutes and case law, but there is a high level of commonality among basic tax principles and a finite number of responses to factual situations. In spite of the many recurring and vexing issues that confront us, regular communication offers an opportunity to encourage consistency and consensus on the one hand and divergent opinion and reasoned dissent on the other. Members actively seek suggestions, advice and even help from their colleagues, who eagerly and generously respond.
LL: How have you seen the National Conference evolve during the years of your involvement?
TJ: Actually, there has been a remarkable level of consistency. There has been a core group of representatives from about 15 states and another dozen or so that change over time. Many members predate my involvement and others are very new. The most significant changes have been the enhanced communication offered by e-mail and the willingness of the group to probe into ethical, theoretical, decision-making and policy-based questions. There also has been a noticeable increase in volunteerism and in the number of women who are active participants.
I think there is a growing awareness that the deference given to any fact-finding agency (such as the state tax courts from whence our members come) creates a complementary responsibility to evaluate tax controversies within a framework that addresses all of the pertinent legal, valuation, philosophical and public policy issues. From all of that we hope to attain “justice,” which James Madison argued “is the end of government.”
LL: What do you see as the greatest challenges to the conference?
TJ: Remaining timely and relevant, and maintaining a cutting-edge outlook. Not every ascendant theory is always supportable or reasonable, but we seek to remain receptive, open and flexible while respecting the basic principles of state and local taxation that have stood the test of time. As issues become more complex and multi-jurisdictional, there is always a tug-of-war between local control and innovation versus national consistency and uniformity. This era of enormous budgetary constraints on state and local agencies places a premium on knowing where to go for expertise.
We face new challenges and are learning every day, and the conference presents the opportunity to encourage that growth. As John Quincy Adams said, “To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is . . . the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind.” We are also working to increase our membership and recruit more participation from states not currently represented. The optimum goal is to have around 55 to 60 active participants at any one time.
LL: What role does the Lincoln Institute play?
TJ: It is the heart and the soul of the conference. Especially in these trying economic times, without the Institute’s support many of our members would not have the local funding and financial wherewithal to attend the conference. And, without the organizing ability of the Institute staff, there would be no conference. The Lincoln Institute is uniquely qualified to create the healthy intellectual environment that brings the tax policy, legislative, academic, practitioner and administrative points of view before those very persons who decide the cases and, in so doing, “make the law.”
LL: You alluded to policy. Should judges and tax adjudicators be involved in considering public policy?
TJ: I can only suggest my own view. How judges and adjudicative bodies rule is almost inevitably a reflection of what they learn, know, believe, have proven before them, sense and comprehend, as well as what appears to be just. Everything must be taken against the backdrop of the purposes of the law and the ends that the law seeks to achieve. The more informed, eclectic, analytical and open the decision maker, the better the outcome.
The valuation of contaminated property (brownfields) and subsidized housing are two real property tax areas that immediately come to mind. These are technical issues, but they require an appreciation of the larger context and policy implications, as well as the proper balance between legislation and its interpretation.
The Lincoln Institute has had a significant and salutary impact on the development of sound tax policy. Henry George, whose writings inspire the Institute’s work, addressed these issues in The Land Question “[Taxation] must not take from individuals what rightfully belongs to individuals.” In Progress and Poverty he stated, “It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community.” But, as an exercise of power, it “must not repress industry . . . check commerce . . . [or] punish thrift . . .”
LL: What are some of the major tax issues facing tribunals today?
TJ: On the real property taxation side there is the taxation of contaminated property; the use and misuse of the cost approach; valuation of subsidized housing; the effect of low-income housing tax credited property; and the changing face of charitable and nonprofit entities. There are so many other issues: the application of traditional sales, use, gross receipts and income tax principles to an ever-expanding and global economy; related questions of nexus jurisdiction and extraterritorial power; the impact of e-commerce; the clash and interrelationship of the due process and commerce clauses; local autonomy challenged by movements to adopt model acts.
Other more general concerns include alternative dispute resolution; pro se litigants; ethics (appraiser, assessor, judicial); regulation versus deregulation; court management; and the role of policy in decision making. Added to these are the routine daily determinations that must be made by tribunals and agencies that form the grist of the taxation process, which is the lifeblood of government—that which Oliver Wendell Holmes characterized as “what we pay for civilized society.”
LL: How does the National Conference of State Tax Judges interact with other professional associations?
TJ: Many members of the conference are active at the state and local level with continuing legal education (CLE), appraisal or assessment organizations, such as seminars offered with the Appraisal Institute. Others take part in presentations sponsored by local directors of revenue or bar-related symposia on tax issues. Some sit on advisory commissions, boards, panels and task forces. Still others, including myself, have a continuing relationship with the IAAO, which offers an especially valuable and practical access to the assessment side of the real property world.
LL: Any final thoughts on the conference and its future?
TJ: Having just completed my two-year term as chairman, I hope it can be said that the conference maintained the high standards set by my immediate predecessors—Ignatius MacLellan, Joseph Small and Blaine Davis. I certainly feel that the future is in capable hands with our new chair, Arnold Aronson. With the biannual rotation of the conference to different locations around the U.S., it returns to Cambridge next year to celebrate its twenty-fifth year. I will simply echo what many of us say every year when we convene: This conference is the finest and most beneficial professional education endeavor in which any of us are engaged.
SHARE
The property tax has been subject to much popular criticism and political pressure in recent decades. Several states have implemented, or are considering, a variety of caps and limits on property assessments, property tax rates, or total revenue raised from the property tax. Perhaps the best-known example is California’s Proposition 13, which ties property assessments to the purchase price of a dwelling (rather than its current market value) and limits the tax rate that can be levied on homes. It is worth taking another look at the property tax and considering its strengths and weaknesses as a source of funding for local government services.
SHARE
The betterment levy or special assessment (as it is known in the United States) is a “compulsory charge imposed by a government on the owners of a selected group of properties to defray, in whole or in part, the cost of a specific improvement or services that is presumed to be of general benefit to the public and of special benefit to the owners of such properties” (IAAO 1997, 10–11). In Colombia this levy, called Contribución de Valorización (CV), has been collected since 1921.
The betterment levy is addressed in the legislation of most Latin American countries, although its implementation often meets resistance. The main arguments against it claim it is impractical, technically cumbersome, beyond local capacity to implement, and unpopular. Colombia’s experience, however, seems to contradict these allegations, suggesting that the resistance is grounded more on prejudice, ideology, or lack of information. This instrument not only has a long history of continued (albeit irregular) application, but also a record of raising substantive revenues to fund public works.
Bogotá currently has about $1 billion worth of investment in public works from this levy, and eight other smaller cities combined have another $1 billion. More importantly, based on recent levies on 1.5 million properties in Bogotá, its collection has been generally accepted by taxpayers with relatively low default rates—in fact lower than for the property tax. Although its legitimacy is not questioned, even among the business community, controversies continue over how the charge is assessed and distributed among properties. This raises an interesting question: Why, in spite of its technical shortcomings, is the betterment levy well-accepted by society at large?
In spite of its relevance, there is very little literature available about this instrument in Colombia and in the rest of Latin America (Fernandes 1981; Bustamante 1996; Manon and Macon 1977). To fill this gap, my colleagues and I carried out a study of the methods used to assess the levy in Bogotá and Manizales—two cities that exemplify different assessment models used in Colombia (Borrero et al. 2011). This article summarizes the main findings of the study and, we hope, may be useful to other cities interested in applying betterment levies to finance urban development.
In Colombia the betterment levy has played a significant role in financing public works and has been a major contributor to municipal revenues, although collections have fluctuated over time. In the late 1960s, they accounted for 16 percent of total revenues in Bogotá and 45 percent of revenues in Medellín. In the beginning of the 1980s, the levy accounted for 30 percent of revenues in Cali, and in 1993 it represented 24 percent of revenues in Bogotá. Since 2000, the levy has been used more intensively in Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Manizales, Bucaramanga, Barranquilla, and most other cities with a population of 300,000 or more.
We chose to study Bogotá and Manizales because these cities have used this instrument during the past 20 years to finance many roads and urban services. Each city developed its own distinct methodology, and has had ample experience advising other cities. For instance, Cali and Barranquilla have started collecting the levy for road construction using the Bogotá model, while Bucaramanga and Pereira have followed the Manizales model (also known as the Medellín model). Both approaches are legal in Colombia, but the methodology and focus used to allocate the levy are very different.
Colombian law stipulates three parameters used to calculate the betterment levy: (1) the cost of the construction project; (2) the value added to properties that can be attributed to the project; and (3) the affordability of the levy (i.e., the capacity of the property owners to pay). Law Decree 1604 of 1966 states that the upper bound of the levy is the lowest value among these parameters. For example, in Manizales one of the projects had small values added that were considerably less than the project cost; yet the levy was assessed based on the value added. The only city that does not comply with this norm is Bogotá, where the levy equals the cost of the project.
The Bogotá model uses a series of factors to represent the local benefit of the project in order to assess the levy, taking into account the payment capacity of the property owners and the different benefit levels. These factors include considerations such as improved mobility and welfare, but do not quantify the specific value added to the property by the project.
On the other hand, the Medellín model applied in Manizales calculates the value added to the property by the project using a dual appraisal method, and then distributes the levy among the property owners by taking into account their capacity to pay. Thus, the Bogotá model is similar to a general tax to finance public works, while the Medellin model is closer to the concept of value capture contribution to fund public works (Act 388 of 1997, Article 87; Doebele 1998).
The Experience of Bogotá
Bogotá, the capital of Colombia, is a city of 7.5 million people with an area of 1,587 square kilometers (613 square miles) on a flat savannah of the Andes mountain range. The administration of the betterment levy is the responsibility of the Urban Development Institute (Instituto de Desarrollo Urbano, or IDU), which is also in charge of identifying the main road construction projects to be financed by the levy. The levy is assessed on all properties affected by a given project (or set of projects) and is calculated by multiplying different benefit factors. Examples of recent projects with revenues from the levy are shown in table 1.
Area of Influence
In order to collect a betterment levy, the IDU defines the area of influence, that is, the area where the road construction project will provide benefits. The criteria used to establish the areas of influence and the level of benefit include proximity and accessibility to the project—which affords greater use of the road and thus increases property values—as measured by the project impact on the assessed value and the economic conditions of the real estate properties in the area.
To reduce the average amount of the levy, an effort is made to include the largest possible number of lots within the area of influence. When the levy finances multiple projects, the boundaries of the entire area of influence are defined by superimposing the individual areas of each project and adjusting them to account for the complementary effects of the benefits from the combined set of projects (Borrero et al. 2011, 22).
Measuring Project Benefits
The benefits resulting from the project or set of projects are calculated by city zone, taking into account benefit factors defined for each project. Using the example of a recent road project, the benefit factors are: (1) greater mobility, which translates into greater transit speeds, lower transit time, lower operating costs, and higher quality of life; (2) general urban planning benefits as the project normalizes the road network and rationalizes the use of public space; (3) changes generated in land use and stimulation of productive and commercial activities; (4) greater market value of nearby real estate properties; (5) integration of the project into the urban structure of the city; (6) optimization of circulation and mobility; and (7) recovery of deteriorated or depressed areas (Borrero et al. 2011, 84).
Once the benefits of the project are defined and its cost estimated, the distribution of the levy takes into account additional factors: the type of land use, density, degree of benefit allocated to each lot, and the payment capacity of the property owners as measured by household quality of life surveys. The Bogotá model is criticized primarily because the calculation of the project benefit does not measure the value added to the properties directly, but instead relies mostly on these indirect indicators.
The Experience of Manizales
Manizales is a city of 400,000 people located west of Bogotá, at the center of the coffee producing region. Its topography is mountainous, which implies high engineering costs. The city has extensive experience with road development and urban renewal financed with betterment levies, but it uses a different methodology from that in Bogotá and it requires a more detailed description. The institution that administers the levy with full authority delegated by the city legislature is the Instituto de Valorización de Manizales (INVAMA).
Over the past three years, Manizales has financed four major road and urban development projects with the levy: renewal of the Alfonso López Plaza; paving of Alférez Real road; renovation of Paseo de los Estudiantes; and development of the Eastern Area road network. All of the projects were funded by a single levy assessed on 80 percent of these properties, and collections amounted to US$24.6 million (table 2).
Measuring Project Benefits
Manizales applies the dual appraisal method to measure benefits—a methodology used for many years in Medellín, Bucaramanga, and other cities. This method identifies cadastre valuations for real estate properties in a second area comparable in its characteristics to the area affected by the designated projects. The assumption is that land values will behave similarly in both areas. Experts make an initial appraisal of a sample of properties in the area of influence of the proposed project to determine the present market values. To estimate the land values after the project is finished, they appraise the market values in the comparison area.
This method is based on information about the increase in value or benefit generated by previous infrastructure projects, referred to as ex-post evaluation. The City of Manizales initiated an ex-post analysis of the projects executed in past years to examine the value added to the land, but few other cities that collect betterment levies have done so.
The initial appraisal is intended to create a map of land prices (isoprices map) before construction, and the second appraisal determines the added value hypothetically generated by the new infrastructure project in the area. The lot or area where the “maximum added value” occurs (known as the “focal point”) is analyzed in detail to calculate the maximum percentage increase in value.
Critical Steps in the Dual Appraisal Method
1. Define the area of influence.This area is based on the improved mobility enabled by the road or infrastructure project, and its definition is similar to that used in Bogotá.
2. Calculate the benefit and generate an isoprices map based on a sample of properties. The criteria to measure distances and road networks are established within an initial zone defined as broadly as possible. A sample of lots is taken, representing the predominant, nonspecific features of the properties in the zone. Information collected on this sample is used to generate a map of land values before the project is constructed. The sample size is calculated statistically. For medium-size cities experts appraise between 100 and 200 properties, depending on the size of the area of influence and its heterogeneity. A second map of isoprices is then developed with the new expected property values, and a third map plots the differences in isoprices between the first and second map. This third map is used to distribute the betterment levy.
3. Estimate the benefit. To determine the added value or benefit accruing to a lot, an interdisciplinary team of experienced professionals carries out several studies: an economic study to define the mathematical formulas that qualify the parameters for the value-added criteria; a road network study to qualify and quantify the benefit, measured as a reduction in travel distance for the population in the affected neighborhoods; an urban study to measure the potential for different land uses in the area; and a real estate study to compare and quantify the level of benefit in specific areas.
4. Allocate the benefit. Each of the following factors is given a weight (shown in parenthesis): potential change of use, which generates the most added value even though it affects a small number of lots (40 percent); improved access to higher value areas or commercial areas (20 percent); (savings in commuting time is measured by reduction of travel time in the city, clearly determining times and distances (20 percent); and reduction in pollution or traffic congestion at specific areas where these problems occur (20 percent).
5. Establish the level of benefit (focal point). As mentioned above, the area of highest betterment in the entire area of influence, known as the focal point, is the lot or area that benefits most from the project, because of the confluence of the most important value-added factors. The expected added value is then calculated for this lot and the corresponding percentage is multiplied by the initial market value of lot. With these values, one builds the added value or isopricing map for the entire area expected to benefit from the project once it is finished. Ex-post studies performed in several cities found that road projects generate on average an actual added land value of 10 to 15 percent within three years following project completion. Assuming 15 percent incremental value for the lot with the highest benefit, it follows that a lot with 70 percent benefit has an expected added value of 10.5 percent.
6. Distribute the levy. Once the cost of the project has been defined and its value-added impact has been calculated, INVAMA proceeds to distribute the levy within the area of influence using models appropriate to the project. Manizales uses benefit factors to distribute the levy, as do most cities in Colombia. The method is based on defining a “virtual area” obtained by multiplying weighted factors given to property characteristics by the level of benefit and the physical area of the lot. Criteria to define benefit factors for distribution purposes may vary, but the point of reference is the total value of the property based on area of the lot plus construction (Borrero et al. 2011, annex 2).
7. Determine affordability. The levy is assessed by taking into account the capacity to pay of the contributors, and therefore it may be allocated differently depending on their socioeconomic level. Affordability is based on data from household income and expenditure surveys. Sometimes a comparative analysis is made between the betterment levy and other charges, e.g. the relationship between the levy and the utilities paid by the property owner, or the relation between the levy and the property tax.
8. Set the collection period. In Manizales, Medellín and Bucaramanga, the collection period generally coincides with project execution. Other cities have tried different approaches. In Cali, the most recent betterment levy collection started before construction, but will extend for a long time following project completion. Cities normally collect one betterment levy in each mayoral term (4 years), but recent projects in Bogotá and Cali have longer collection periods, extending over several terms.
9. The legal maximum collection term is five years following project completion, but the most successful experiences are completed in two years. Longer-term collections are more difficult and pose the risk of the municipality running into cash flow problems to finish the project. The betterment levy can be collected as early as two years before the initiation of construction, but that requires very efficient cost estimates and expedient project execution. In Bogotá, a recent experience in collecting the levy two years in advance of the construction start date generated controversy because the project started late and has progressed slowly. To avoid this problem, the proposed new Bogotá Betterment Statute stipulates that the levy shall be collected concomitantly with project execution.
Perceived Legitimacy
The betterment levy has a lot of support among city residents and property owners in Manizales, as shown by high levels of satisfaction in a recent survey (table 3). The levy was collected before the projects began and 80 percent of the payments were made in the first year of collections. This survey, taken after project completion, captures the perceptions of citizens regarding the way INVAMA managed two recent projects. Specifically, the results demonstrate a clear link between the benefit and the willingness to pay the levy—a higher compliance level than that of the property tax, even though the levy is higher than the tax. This finding contradicts the common believe that Latin American taxpayers have a culture of nonpayment. It also attests to the high level of legitimacy among the citizens and the good governance of the municipality’s management of the betterment levy
Concluding Remarks
Colombia’s experience with the betterment levy during the past 70 years demonstrates that it is a viable instrument to finance urban development and is capable of raising substantial revenues, even though the methodology to assess and distribute the levy is complex and can be perfected. Among the lessons to draw from that experience, the most important is the clear link between the provision of public benefits and the property owners’ willingness to pay the levy. Success depends on the legitimacy of the project and the institutional capacity and ethical standards of the agency administering the levy. To generate trust among citizens, success is also predicated on ensuring affordability, applying a fair distribution model, publicizing the social value of the project, and promoting participation during implementation.
About the Author
Oscar Borrero Ochoa is an economist, a certified appraiser, and a private consultant on property markets, real estate development projects, and management. He has been president of Camacol, the Colombian organization of the building industry, and Fedelonjas, the Colombian organization of property appraisers. He isa lecturer on urban economics at the University of Los Andes and the National University of Colombia, Bogotá, and is a frequent speaker in Lincoln Institute courses.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks his colleagues Esperanza Durán, Jorge Hernández, and Magda Montaña who were key contributors to the Lincoln Institute working paper and related research on which this article is based.
References
Borrero Ochoa, Oscar, Esperanza Durán, Jorge Hernández, and Magda Montaña. 2011. Evaluating the practice of betterment levies in Colombia: The experience of Bogotá and Manizales. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Bustamante Ledesma, Francisco Dario. 1996. Manual de contribución de valorización. Medellín: Ed. Teoría del Color Litografía.
Doebele, William A. 1998. The recovery of ‘socially created’ land values in Colombia. Land Lines 10(4).
Fernández Cadavid, Alberto. 1981. La contribución de valorización en Colombia, 2nd edition. Bogotá: Editorial Temis.
IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers). 1997. Glossary for property appraisal and assessment. Chicago, IL: IAAO.
Manon, Jorge, and Jose Merino Macon. 1977. Financing urban and rural development through betterment levies: The Latin America experience. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, Inc.
SHARE
Adam H. Langley is a senior research analyst in the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Previously, Langley worked for the New York State Assembly. He earned his B.A. in political studies from Bard College and an M.A. in economics from Boston University.
Langley’s research has covered a range of issues related to state and local public finance, with a particular focus on the property tax. He has coauthored three Lincoln Institute Policy Focus Reports: Property Tax Circuit Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers (2009), Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Balancing Municipal and Nonprofit Interests (2010), and Rethinking Property Tax Incentives for Business (2012). He has also led several projects to provide data on the Lincoln Institute’s website, including creation of the Fiscally Standardized Cities (FiSCs) database and a dataset with extensive information on nonprofits that make payments in lieu of taxes and the localities that receive them.
His articles have appeared in journals such as Regional Science and Urban Economics, Public Finance and Management, and Publius: The Journal of Federalism. His research has also been covered by more than a hundred news outlets, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Governing, and The Boston Globe.
Land Lines: What projects have you been working on recently as a senior research analyst at the Lincoln Institute?
Adam Langley: I have been working on several projects related to local government finances. One major project has been the creation of the Fiscally Standardized Cities (FiSCs) database. This subcenter on the Lincoln Institute’s website allows users to make meaningful comparisons of local government finances at the city level for 112 of the largest U.S. cities over the past 35 years. I drew on this data in a recent paper on municipal finances during the Great Recession, which I presented at Lincoln’s 9th annual Land Policy Conference on June 2, 2014. I am also creating a summary table that describes state programs for property tax exemptions and credits, drawing information from Lincoln’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter. I plan to use that table to estimate tax expenditures for these programs in all 50 states.
Land Lines: You’ve worked on several projects to provide data on the Lincoln Institute’s website. What motivates this focus on data?
Adam Langley: These data projects go to the core of Lincoln’s mission to inform decision making on issues related to the use, regulation, and taxation of land. Lincoln’s databases have been used by policymakers to help guide their decisions, by journalists to provide broader context in their stories, and by researchers for their own projects. Providing data that is freely accessible and easy to use greatly magnifies the potential reach of Lincoln’s work on land policy issues, because it empowers other analysts to undertake new research in this area.
It is also essential for Lincoln’s reputation that we base our policy recommendations on high-quality analysis and good data. To impact policy decisions, it’s critical that our research be widely viewed as objective, nonpartisan, and evidence-based.
Land Lines: You say that Fiscally Standardized Cities allow for meaningful comparisons of local government finances at the city level. What’s wrong with simple comparisons of city governments?
Adam Langley: The service responsibilities for city governments vary widely across the country. While some municipalities provide a full array of public services for their residents, others share these responsibilities with a variety of overlying independent governments. Because of these differences in local government structure, comparing city governments alone can be very misleading.
For example, consider a comparison of Baltimore and Tampa. The city government in Baltimore spends three times more per capita than the city government in Tampa—$5,594 versus $1,829 in 2011. However, the difference is almost entirely due to the fact that the City of Tampa splits the provision of local services with overlying Hillsborough County and an independent school district, whereas Baltimore has no overlying county government and the schools are part of the city government itself. Once all overlying governments are accounted for in the FiSC methodology, per capita expenditures for residents in the two cities are nearly identical—$6,083 in Baltimore versus $6,067 in Tampa.
Land Lines: Can you explain the methodology used to create Fiscally Standardized Cities?
Adam Langley: FiSCs are constructed by adding together revenues for each city government plus an appropriate share from overlying counties, independent school districts, and special districts. County revenues are allocated to the FiSC based on the city’s share of county population, school revenues are allocated based on the percentage of students in a school district who live in the central city, and special district revenues are allocated based on the city’s share of residents living in the district’s service area. Thus FiSCs provide a full picture of revenues raised from city residents and businesses, whether collected by the city government or a separate overlying government. These allocations are made for more than 120 categories of revenues, expenditures, debt, and assets. The FiSC methodology was developed with Andrew Reschovsky, a Lincoln Institute fellow, and Howard Chernick, a professor at Hunter College of the City University of New York. We calculate the estimates using fiscal data for individual governments provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, and we will update the FiSC database as data for additional years become available.
Land Lines: Why is it important to compare local government finances at the city level?
Adam Langley: Many people want to know how their city compares to other cities, but it’s critical to account for differences in local government structure when making these comparisons. The FiSC database does account for these differences. Thus, it can be used to compare property tax revenues in two cities, rank all cities by their school spending, investigate changes in public sector salaries over time, or see which cities are most reliant on state aid to fund their budgets.
In a separate project with Andrew Reschovsky and Richard Dye, we’re using the FiSC methodology to estimate pension costs and liabilities for all local governments serving each city. Media coverage sometimes creates the impression that all public pension plans face serious challenges, but in fact there is a great deal of variation around the country. In order to investigate these differences, it’s essential to have comparable data on pension costs for all local governments serving each city. For example, initial estimates show that on average the annual required contribution (ARC) for local pension plans in 2010 was equal to 4.9 percent of general revenues for the 112 FiSCs. However, ARC was more than 10 percent of revenues in both Chicago (11.7 percent) and Portland, Oregon (10.9).
Land Lines: Did revenue declines vary much across cities during the Great Recession?
Adam Langley: Yes, revenue declines ranged widely across the 112 FiSCs during and after the recession. Accounting for inflation and population growth, only eight FiSCs avoided revenue declines entirely through 2011. I calculated changes in real per capita revenues from each FiSC’s peak through 2011: About a third experienced declines of 5 percent or less (41 FiSCs), another third saw declines between 5 and 10 percent (34 FiSCs), and about a quarter had declines exceeding 10 percent (29 FiSCs). FiSCs with very large revenue declines include Las Vegas (20.2 percent), Riverside (18.0 percent), and Sacramento (18.0 percent).
Land Lines: Have local government revenues recovered much since the end of the recession?
Adam Langley: Not really, because revenue changes lagged behind economic changes by several years during and after the recession. Real per capita local government revenues were stable through 2009, declined slightly in 2010, and fell more significantly in 2011. The latest year with comprehensive data is 2011, so I tied together several different data sources to estimate revenues through 2013. Those data suggest that revenues hit bottom in 2012, when they were 5 to 6 percent below 2007 levels. That means revenues did not bottom out until three years after the recession officially ended. Revenues started to recover in 2013 but remained more than 4 percent below pre-recession levels.
This lag is driven by changes in intergovernmental aid and property taxes, which together fund almost two-thirds of local governments’ budgets. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided states with about $150 billion in federal stimulus between 2009 and 2011, and there were additional stimulus funds provided directly to local governments. Most stimulus funds were gone by 2012, however, which led to the largest cuts in state spending in at least 25 years. Moreover, changes in property taxes typically lag behind changes in housing prices by two to three years, due to the fact that property tax bills are based on assessments from prior years, there are delays in reassessing properties, and other factors. That lag means that property taxes actually grew through 2009, did not fall until 2011, and then hit their trough in 2012.
Land Lines: Can you elaborate on your work describing property tax exemption and credit programs?
Adam Langley: I’m nearly finished with the first stage of this project, which entails creating a summary table on states’ exemption and credit programs. The table contains data for 167 programs, with 18 variables describing the key features of each program. There is information on the value of exemptions expressed in terms of market value; criteria related to age, disability, income, and veteran status; the type of taxes affected; whether tax loss is borne by state or local government; local options; and more. Once that table is completed, I will write a policy brief to outline key features of these programs. All of this information is drawn from the table on Residential Property Tax Relief Programs in Lincoln’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter of the website. The original Residential Relief table provides detailed descriptions of each program, while the summary table should be most useful for users who want to make quick comparisons of states or for researchers who want to conduct quantitative analysis.
In the second stage of this project, I will estimate tax expenditures for these property tax relief programs. Despite the prevalence of these programs and their often large impacts on property tax burdens, there are no comprehensive estimates of their costs. Using data from the summary table and microdata from the American Community Survey, I will estimate for each state the percentage of residents who are eligible for property tax relief programs, the total cost of tax relief programs, the average benefit for beneficiaries, and the percentage of residents eligible and their average benefit by income quintile. These estimates will provide valuable new information on the impacts of property tax relief programs in the United States.
SHARE
The property tax in Indiana has long generated considerable public policy debate, centering on the methods prescribed by the state to determine property values. Most states use some form of market value as the assessment standard, but Indiana relies on “true tax value.” Indiana law defines this as “the value determined under the rules of the State Board of Tax Commissioners,” and it declares that “true tax value does not mean fair market value.”
A landmark decision by the state Supreme Court in December 1998 ignited new debate over Indiana’s property tax system. The Court ruled that the tables used in the 1995 assessment manual lacked “meaningful reference to property wealth,” did not contain “objectively verifiable data,” and violated the state constitution. Although the legal opinion contained language suggesting approval of the use of market-derived data, the Court fell short of mandating a system based strictly on market value.
Almost two years have passed since this ruling, but minimal progress has been made in implementing a more equitable and uniform assessment system. Policy makers have focused almost exclusively on the projected tax shifts, especially those to homeowners, under market-derived valuation methods, and have all but ignored the underlying inequities that plague Indiana’s assessment system.
This article reviews the essential features of Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems, describes recent reform efforts, and identifies critical reform issues, apart from the tax shifts, that need to be addressed.
Property Tax and Assessment Systems
Property Tax Revenues. In 1999, the property tax raised more than $4.6 billion, nearly all of it generated locally and used for local services, especially K-12 public education. The property tax is the largest revenue source in Indiana, generating more revenue in 1999 than federal funds ($3.8 billion), individual income taxes ($3.7 billion), and sales and use taxes ($3.4 billion). Together, these four revenue sources account for nearly 80 percent of total state and local revenue (see Figure 1).
Nearly 65 percent of the total property tax levy in 1999 was paid by the business community, including commercial, industrial, utility, and agricultural property (see Figure 2). Personal property accounts for about one-half of the total business property tax burden. Although Indiana’s constitution prohibits unequal property taxation, this relatively high business share demonstrates a de facto classification system that allocates a majority of the property tax burden to non-voting entities.
Local Administration. The primary assessing jurisdiction in Indiana is the township. Each of the state’s 1,008 townships elects either a full- or part-time assessor, depending on population; nearly 85 percent of these assessors are part-time. County assessors are elected in each of the state’s 92 counties. As a general rule, the county assessor has a greater role when townships have more part-time assessors, because the county assessor reviews both personal property and real estate assessments.
State Administration. The State Board of Tax Commissioners (Tax Board), the first property tax commission of its kind in the nation, is primarily responsible for promulgating assessment rules and regulations for both real and personal property. Additionally, the Tax Board hears property tax appeals, approves local government budgets, provides assessor training, and maintains a comprehensive local government database.
Assessment Standards. Real and personal property are assessed at one-third of true tax value (TTV). The TTV of improved real property is based on a cost approach, but neither the replacement costs nor the depreciation schedules are market derived. In fact, when compared to the market, Indiana’s TTVs vary widely, not only between property classes (i.e., residential, business, utility and agricultural) but within classes as well.
The TTV of personal property is based on original acquisition cost, but, like the TTV of real property, relies on depreciation schedules that bear little relationship to the market. Most business assets receive accelerated depreciation of 40 to 60 percent in the first few years. However, older assets are subject to a relatively high residual value of 30 percent of original cost. Business inventory also is based on its original cost and is subject to the same floor, but it receives a 35 percent assessment deduction.
Indiana law provides that the TTV of land is to be based on market value, but recent studies have found that land assessments are significantly less than market value. Residential land values are roughly 40 percent of market value. The TTV of farmland is based on a use value of $495 per acre, adjusted for soil productivity, resulting in an assessment that is also well below market value.
Assessment Cycle. Indiana employs two different assessment cycles. Personal property is self-assessed annually, while real property reassessment is both infrequent and irregular. The last general reassessment of real property took effect in March 1995. The previous reassessment occurred in 1989, and reassessments generally took effect every ten years before then. The next general reassessment of real property has been delayed from March 1999 until at least March 2002.
Assessment Reform
Major state reform efforts, whether in welfare programs, school funding or tax policy, tend be driven by either fiscal distress or judicial mandates, but the political process dictates the speed of reform. This same pattern holds true for tax reform to achieve a more equitable and uniform assessment system in Indiana, as policy makers have been slow to respond to judicial mandates.
Judicial Efforts. The Indiana Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John is widely considered to be the most significant judicial decision on taxation in the state’s history. The Supreme Court affirmed the state Tax Court’s decision that the 1995 real property assessment manual violated the state constitution’s requirement that the Indiana General Assembly provide for “. . . a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation.”
The Supreme Court found these mandates of uniformity and equality were not met because the manual’s cost schedules were arbitrary, did not reflect actual construction costs, and were not based on “objectively verifiable” data. Unlike the Tax Court, however, the Supreme Court did not mandate a strict market value system. Rather, it ruled that any departures from market value must result in assessments that are “substantially uniform and equal based on property wealth.”
Because executive and legislative policy makers have been slow to respond to this mandate, the Tax Court has become increasingly assertive in the pursuit of an equitable assessment system. Recently, the Tax Court established certain dates for both the adoption (June 2001) and implementation (March 2002) of constitutional assessment regulations, required the Tax Board to submit monthly progress reports, and announced that an independent reassessment commissioner would be appointed if the Tax Board’s efforts were “deficient in any meaningful way.”
Executive Efforts. To carry out its duty to ensure uniformity and equality of property assessment and taxation, the Indiana General Assembly has delegated the development and oversight of the state’s assessment system to the State Tax Board, an executive agency under the governor. This agency has the unenviable task of creating a new assessment system that will likely cause considerable shifts in tax burdens. Delays have further politicized this process, and assessment reform and tax burden shifts have become the focus of the November 2000 general election.
The Tax Board has taken steps to comply with the Supreme Court decision. The Board’s 1999 proposed real property assessment manual incorporated market-derived cost tables for all property classes. Residential depreciation schedules also were based on the market, and the base value of agricultural land was increased from $495 to $1,050 an acre.
Unfortunately, other actions by the Tax Board and the inaction of the executive branch may have offset these improvements. For example, the proposed manual provided a residential assessment reduction, or shelter allowance. The Tax Board argued that basic shelter is not property wealth, since other assets cannot substitute for shelter. A shelter allowance was calculated for each county, ranging in value between $16,000 and $22,686, to be deducted from residential property assessments. This unique valuation method would reduce the predicted residential tax shift from 33 to 7 percent and could be considered a form of classification. Viewing this shift as unacceptable, the governor did not approve the 1999 proposed real estate manual, illustrating the highly politicized nature of assessment reform.
Legislative Efforts. Anticipating a major court decision, the 1997 Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation that many considered the first step toward significant assessment reform. It increased assessor training requirements, improved the local and state appeals process, and required the state to establish level of assessment and uniformity standards and to conduct equalization studies. Again, these improvements may have been offset by other legislative initiatives. The 1997 legislation allows township assessors to establish land values, an authority that previously rested with county land commissions. Current data indicates that these township land values are far from market values, and it is unlikely that the large number of part-time township assessors can establish more accurate land values in the future.
The recently enacted equalization legislation is also problematic. Most states equalize assessments in the first year that reassessment takes effect, to provide immediate mitigation for unequal assessment. Current Indiana law delays equalization for at least two years following the effective date of reassessment.
Conclusion
It comes as no surprise that projected property tax shifts have become the focal point of both assessment reform efforts and the 2000 general election. The highly politicized debate over “acceptable” tax burden shifts has distracted policy makers from addressing reform of assessment regulations. While market-derived assessment manuals represent a significant step, this alone will not result in a more uniform and equitable assessment system. Policy makers must also consider the following issues:
1. Taxpayer equity cannot be measured by interclass tax shifts at the county level alone. Assessment reform will produce dramatic intraclass and intracounty tax shifts, but these shifts have been discussed only as they relate to residential property. Yet, current data indicates that equally significant shifts will occur within other property classes, especially business property.
2. The current administrative structure of the state’s assessment system may not be compatible with an equitable and uniform assessment system. Restructuring the Tax Board could help insulate it from the political consequences of its oversight function. At the local level, policy makers should consider streamlining the roles of local assessors and identifying alternative assessment jurisdiction models based on population, parcel counts, and/or assessed value.
3. Adoption and enforcement of strict equalization standards may be the most significant step in the reform process.
4. The Indiana assessment community should take further steps to increase the level of assessor training and expand assessor qualification requirements. Policy makers also should consider appointment of local assessors by the county executive.
5. Indiana land assessments have been and continue to be well below market value. This underlying problem must be rectified through assessor training, more diligent state oversight, and implementation of the equalization process.
These issues must be addressed in order to remedy the inequities currently plaguing Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems.
____________
Frank Kelly and Jeff Wuensch are cofounders of the Nexus Group, an Indiana-based research firm specializing in property taxation. Kelly is also assistant professor of economics at Butler University and Indiana University; he previously served as the senior tax analyst for the Indiana State Tax Board. Wuensch previously worked as director of tax review at the Indiana State Tax Board and at the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute. Kelly, Wuensch and Thomas Hamilton, assistant professor of real estate in the Department of Finance at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, are joint recipients of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation from the Lincoln Institute. This article is based on their study of Indiana’s property tax system as part of their Fellowship project.
Total state and local revenue: Table/Chart 1 Sources are the Indiana State Tax Board and Indiana State Budget Agency Who pays the property tax: Table/Chart 2 Source is the Indiana State Tax Board.
SHARE
The shift to a multi-racial government in South Africa is as pronounced and dramatic a transition as that of the new independent states of Central and Eastern Europe. In the past five years, South Africa has adopted a new constitution, elected a new government, redrawn state and municipal boundaries, and undertaken basic reform of its legal and political system. Land policy is central to this transformation, for “since the 1913 Natives Land Act, rights to own, rent or even share-crop land in South Africa depended upon a person’s race classification.” (1) Among the major land-related issues currently under scrutiny are property tax reform, restitution of land rights, and improvements in tenure security and access to landholding.
Land and Property Taxation
South African real property taxes take a number of forms, including “site rating,” a tax on unimproved value alone; “flat rating” on land and structures uniformly; and “composite ratings,” which tax land and improvements at different rates. Multiplicity and change are the norm, as Cape Town has recently decided to adopt site rating, Durban is considering replacement of its composite rating system with site rating, and Pretoria has introduced a temporary tax on improvements to supplement its site rating system.
The property tax in South Africa is not at present applied to rural land, although its potential extension to non-urban areas is the subject of intense debate. It is in the cities, however, that the struggle to transform the country will succeed or fail. In 1995, the urban sector accounted for about 65 percent of South Africa’s population and more than 80 percent of its GDP. Property taxes are an important source of revenue for cities to meet the cost of providing services within their newly redrawn boundaries.
These new boundaries are another index of the pace and variety of change in South Africa. Efforts to consolidate wealthy residential and commercial areas with impoverished townships and settlements have taken different forms in different regions. The central business districts of Johannesburg and Durban have been divided among several taxing jurisdictions that extend beyond their city limits. By contrast, the most of Cape Town’s business and residential regions were combined this summer with a set of neighboring townships in a new administrative region. It consists of 19 former administrations consolidated into 7, involving a transfer of more than 10,000 municipal staff and many assets. These measures have extremely important political and fiscal implications, bringing together as they do residential areas with living standards equal to or even surpassing European norms and settlements without electricity, paved roads or running water.
From a land policy perspective, perhaps the most dramatic legacy of past racial policies is the imbalance between white and non-white landownership. Under apartheid, 87 percent of the country’s land was reserved for white residents, who in 1995 constituted only 13 percent of South Africa’s population. Under these circumstances, property taxation takes on special importance as a potential means for expanding access to the land market. Roy Bahl and Johannes Linn have written:
[A]n equity argument may be at the heart of the matter: urban land prices are frequently so high that low-income groups cannot afford to purchase land…. To the extent that the revenue from property taxes is capitalized into lower current land values (since the tax reduces the expected future private yield on the land), it partially expropriates landownership rights from the present owner and also constitutes a loan to future owners, who can now acquire the land at a lower price but will have to pay property taxes in the future. If low-income groups cannot buy land because they lack liquidity and access to capital markets, property taxation may be one of the policy instruments to improve their access to landownership. (2)
Tax Collections and Tax Revolts
The government faces the challenge of reversing a “culture of nonpayment” for municipal services among township residents. During the apartheid era, the African National Congress (ANC) encouraged its supporters to refuse payment of water and utility charges as a means of contesting the legitimacy of the state-sponsored black local authorities. The resulting arrears were a major financial burden on all levels of government. Now the ANC seeks to promote voluntary payment for these same services, and as well as payment of real property taxes by those who now are able to hold title to their property.
Ironically, one tax protest that received wide publicity took the form of a property tax revolt in one of the nation’s wealthiest white residential areas, the Sandton suburb of Johannesburg. When property tax rates doubled and tripled there in 1996, many local property owners withheld payment in protest. This situation illustrates one of the most paradoxical aspects of the fiscal challenge to the new South Africa: the need to redress the enormous imbalance in resources across racial groups while commanding support from white citizens who feel over-taxed.
On the one hand, the disparities in needs and resources are overwhelming. Households falling below the official poverty level include only 0.7 percent of the white population, but 65 percent of the black population. At the same time, many white taxpayers feel overburdened by taxes-income tax rates, for example, can reach 45 percent on earnings over $22,000-and resentful of nonpayment by some township residents. In Alexandra, a black township inside Sandton, last year’s tax collection rate was only 3 percent. Any effort to meet the pressing fiscal needs of the new South Africa must take into account the vastly different perceptions of contribution and entitlement across its diverse population.
Perspectives on Future Directions
In July, a conference at the University of South Africa in Pretoria brought together governmental officials, policy analysts, academics and international experts to consider local government design and fiscal capacity. Brief overviews of two of the more than 30 presentations at that conference give a sense of the range of issues debated there, from concrete points of physical engineering to theoretical questions of intergovernmental fiscal relations.
At the most basic level, the definition of revenue needs depends on a prior decision as to the scope of local services to which all citizens are entitled. Given that large township areas have grown up without standard infrastructure, what goals should the government set for provision of water, electricity and roads?
Peter Vaz of the official Financial and Fiscal Commission outlined an approach to the monumental task of estimating the cost of providing the minimum services that each citizen can expect. The South African constitution enumerates 27 guaranteed rights, including the right to equality, to human dignity, to life, to freedom of expression, to a healthy environment, to housing, to health care services, to sufficient food, water and social security, to education, to information. The Commission is considering attempts to identify three levels of services-basic, intermediate and full provision. It is also looking at the cost of extending six services to urban and rural areas: water, sewerage, solid waste, roads, stormwater, electricity. For example, the basic level of water provision might be a communal standpipe, the intermediate level a yard tap, and full provision a house connection. The capital cost of each service package then provides a first estimate of the revenue necessary to meet the guarantees relevant to local government activities.
The broadest fiscal questions concern the allocation of taxes and functions among levels of governments. Rudolph Penner of the Barents Group stated that his general support for decentralization in transition economies was tempered in the case of South Africa. The model of voters as consumers choosing a set of local services in exchange for payment of local taxes is not necessarily applicable or desirable in this context. The strong ideological background to politics in South Africa means that voters are not primarily making a local electoral choice on the basis of economic policy. Moreover, the history of apartheid makes self-selected homogeneous groupings unacceptable if they lead to segregation by income class or race. Penner concluded that fiscal decentralization in South Africa must be of a more restrained variety than might be appropriate elsewhere.
These considerations serve only to highlight the sweeping reconsideration of all public institutions and their mandates that has accompanied the initiation of a new era in South African history. Improvements in land policy and taxation may play a significant role in assisting this immense task of national self-transformation.
Joan Youngman is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute, where she directs the Program on the Taxation of Land and Buildings. She and Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America Programs, served on the faculty of the July conference at the University of South Africa.
Notes:
1. South African Department of Land Affairs, Our Land: Green Paper on South African Land Policy (1996), p. 9.
2. Roy W. Bahl and Johannes F. Linn, Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 168.
What are the names of South Africa’s official languages?
A recent newspaper trivia puzzle gives a startling perspective on the enormity of the political, legal and cultural changes experienced by South Africa since 1993, and the difficulty foreign observers face in grasping the scope of these transformations.
The original answer to the question about official languages was given as English and Afrikaans. One week later, a correction noted that South Africa’s major tribal languages should also be included. So the full answer lists ten official languages:
English
Afrikaans
Ndebele
Northern Sotho (Sepedi)
Southern Sotho (Sesotho)
Swati
Tsonga
Tswana (Setswana)
Venda, Xhosa
Zulu
SHARE
Property taxes based on market value have many features that recommend them as a source of local government revenue. They promote visibility and accountability in public spending by providing property owners with a means of evaluating the costs and benefits of local government services. They can provide stable, independent local revenue that is not at the mercy of state budget surpluses or deficits. They are now considered to be proportional or even mildly progressive, in contrast to earlier economic views that presumed the tax to be regressive.
Against these strengths, the greatest challenge to a value-based property tax is political: taxpayers’ strong and completely understandable resistance to sharp increases in tax payments that reflect rising markets but not necessarily rising incomes with which to pay the tax increases. The best known and most dramatic response to this situation was rejection of the value-based tax system in California in 1978. When voters approved Proposition 13, they changed the tax base to the value of the property at the time of purchase or construction, with a maximum 2 percent annual inflation adjustment. For property held by the same owner since 1978, the inflation adjustment is applied to its value on the 1975–1976 tax roll.
This change has greatly altered California’s fiscal landscape. It has restricted the role of local governments, centralized service provision and decision making, and redistributed the tax burden from long-time residents to new property owners. Local governments now have an incentive to seek sales tax revenue by encouraging large retail establishments, such as auto malls, in what has been termed the “fiscalization of land use.” Can the property tax achieve greater stability and predictability without such drastic social and governmental costs? Table 1 illustrates the wide range of residential property tax levies in large metropolitan areas, a factor that presents additional challenges to formulating uniform policies or practical recommendations.
A Lincoln Institute seminar in April 2005 brought together public finance and assessment officials, policy analysts and scholars to consider alternate approaches to the recurrent problems that volatile real estate markets pose for value-based property taxes.
Problems Related to Market-Value Assessment
Discussion began with the incontrovertible observation, “Taxpayers do not like unpredictability.” In theory, reductions in tax rates could balance increases in property prices to maintain stability in actual tax payments under market-value assessments. This approach faces two obstacles. The first and most straightforward is governmental reluctance to reduce tax rates and forego increased revenues when rising values provide a cover for greater tax collection. The second is nonuniform price appreciation in different locations and for different types of property. When one segment of the tax base experiences a disproportionate value change, a corresponding change in the tax rate applied to the entire property class will not maintain level tax collections. California faced both difficulties in the years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. There, rapid residential appreciation was not matched by the lagging commercial sector, and a $7.1 billion state surplus fueled taxpayer cynicism as to the actual need for increased government revenues.
While rapid market shifts are the most challenging source of unpredictable tax changes, taxpayer “shocks” can also be caused simply by long delays in reassessment. Maintaining outdated values on the tax rolls achieves short-term predictability in tax bills, but at the expense of uniformity, accuracy and even legality. Long-postponed reassessments have been followed by tax revolts in many jurisdictions, both in this country and overseas.
Options for Addressing Value Shifts
Seminar participants reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of various measures to address these problems.
Circuit breakers, as their name implies, attempt to reduce a property tax “overload” by providing a refund or credit for taxes that exceed a set percentage of the property owner’s income. When funded by the state and administered as part of the state tax system, they have the dual benefit of protecting local revenue and targeting aid to the most needy taxpayers. At the same time, they require state funding and administration, and taxpayers must file tax returns to order to obtain these benefits. Like all programs that require income information, they sometimes encounter taxpayer resistance and consequent underutilization.
Homestead exemptions, available in most states, reduce assessments on the taxpayer’s primary residence. These exemptions are often granted without regard to taxpayer income, and so are not targeted to the most needy. In predominantly residential communities, this results in a significant loss of municipal revenues unless the tax rate is increased or the tax burden is shifted to other taxpayers. Like all preferential programs for homeowners, these exemptions fail to benefit renters, who bear a portion of the property tax burden and generally are less affluent than homeowners.
Tax deferral measures, often available to low-income elderly homeowners, permit unpaid taxes to accumulate as a lien against the property, to be paid after the residence changes hands. However, the desire to retain property clear of encumbrances has traditionally led homeowners to avoid making use of this option.
“Truth in taxation” legislation requires local governments to take various measures, such as publishing voter information and requesting ballot approval, to treat increases in tax collections in the same manner whether they are the result of growth in the tax base or increases in the tax rate. These enactments seek to counter the temptation to allow rates to remain constant while market values rise, thus increasing taxes and spending without budgetary accountability.
Limitations on annual total property tax collection increases, such as Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts, restrict overall levy growth but do not address unpredictable tax bill changes for specific taxpayers. For example, after several decades of tax stability, Boston taxpayers are now facing assessment shifts that reflect a downturn in the commercial property market with simultaneous explosive growth in certain residential values.
Limitations on annual tax increases for individual properties have enormous political appeal, but face three hazards. First, there is often pressure to make the phase-in period as long as possible, or even longer than possible. Montana provided for an extended 50-year phase-in of new assessments. Second, initial success at limiting increases to a certain percentage may lead to efforts to reduce that limit again. Oklahoma instituted a 5 percent limit and now faces pressure to reduce it to 3 percent. Finally, the “catch-up” of tax assessments when values stabilize or even drop elicits opposition of its own as taxpayers face increasing assessments while property values are flat or falling.
Assessment “freezes” take limitations on increases to their ultimate conclusion, prohibiting any increases despite changes in market values. They often are restricted to specific groups of taxpayers, such as elderly homeowners. Proposition 13 is a type of assessment freeze for all property, with only a 2 percent annual inflation adjustment in the tax base. These measures are in many respects equivalent to the long delays in reassessments that lead to nonuniformity and resistance to new valuations. After values are frozen taxpayers may seek to transfer that value to other family members, as they do in California, or to new residences, as in Texas.
Possible New Approaches
Seminar participants discussed methods for utilizing these and other measures to address the problems of unpredictability while minimizing the problems of inequitable distribution of the tax burden and maintenance of collections. A major distinction was drawn between approaches that moderate tax bill shifts but maintain a market-value base and those that alter assessments themselves. Altering assessments by limiting increases in value can result in situations where owners of similar properties pay very different tax bills. Furthermore, over time properties with average or lesser value appreciation can experience an increasingly greater share of taxes compared with properties that have had larger market increases. As a result wealthier taxpayers are more likely than those of moderate or low incomes to benefit from assessment limits.
To maintain a market-value tax base, with its benefits of uniformity, understandability and administrative efficiency, participants offered suggestions to stabilize rapid increases in tax payments due to significant shifts in the assessment base.
Even significant increases in assessed value, if relatively uniform across the jurisdiction, do not result in increased taxes for most property owners if the municipal budget requires no additional property tax revenues and the tax rate is reduced proportionately. Better information about the relationship between assessed value and the tax rate will make it less likely that taxpayers will place the blame for their higher taxes on the assessors and their assessments. They may consider instead the adequacy of funding sources available to local governments, the effect of exemptions that reduce the property tax base, and unfunded mandates that require additional local expenditures.
The property tax, as the most important source of autonomous local revenue, often bears the brunt of criticism for the social, economic and fiscal pressures on local communities. Among these pressures are increased costs of new educational, environmental and security requirements, reductions in state and federal assistance, changing demographics and economic conditions, and increasing numbers of exemptions. Attention to these issues can clarify the debate over the role and burden of property taxes and the effectiveness of various tax relief measures.
Improving Educational Resources
There is an urgent need to provide government officials, lawmakers and the public with better information on property tax policy choices. Tax revolts and anti-tax initiatives make compelling news stories, but they should be balanced by concise and accessible information that sheds light on the problem and its solution. There is also a need for periodic research on such topics as:
The Institute will be collaborating with the seminar participants and others in continuing these discussions and will undertake further research and the preparation of publications on these property tax issues in the coming year.
Joan Youngman is senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, where she chairs the Department of Valuation and Taxation. Her writings include Legal Issues in Property Valuation and Taxation (1994), and two books co-edited with Jane Malme, An International Survey of Taxes on Land and Buildings (1994) and The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition (2001). She is a contributing author on the property taxation chapter of Jerome R. Hellerstein and Walter Hellerstein’s State and Local Taxation (7th ed. 2001), and writes on property taxation for State Tax Notes.
Jane Malme, fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an attorney, author and consultant on property tax policy, law and administration in the U.S. and internationally. She directed the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Bureau of Local Assessment as it implemented major property tax reforms from 1978 to 1990.
The Lincoln Institute seminar on Property Taxes and Market Values—Responding to Post-Proposition 13 Challenges in April 2005 included participants from many states, including California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and Oklahoma. The discussion leader was Alan Dornfest, property tax policy supervisor in the Idaho State Tax Commission.
The Institute will continue this discussion at the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) Annual Conference in Anchorage, Alaska, in September. Jane Malme will moderate a policy seminar on Property Tax Viability in Volatile Markets with speakers Alan Dornfest; Mark Haveman, director of development for the Minnesota Taxpayers Association and project director for its Center for Public Finance Research; and Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin’s LaFollette School of Public Affairs.
SHARE
Faculty Profile of Andrew Reschovsky
