IPTI | Property Tax in the News – June 2026

IPTI’s usual monthly newsletter – the “President’s Message” – contains, inter alia, some summarised news articles from around the world. This IPTI publication – “Property Tax in the News” – contains some of the more interesting news articles concerning property taxes in North America and Europe which is where many of our members have a particular interest. Links to these and more, similarly summarised, articles – from North America, Europe and around the globe – can be found in “IPTI Xtracts” on our website: www.ipti.org. Please note that these are news articles; they do not necessarily reflect IPTI’s views.

USA

New York: Shifts Property Tax Strategy Toward Luxury and Second Homes

New York lawmakers are advancing a new wave of real estate tax proposals that could reshape the economics of luxury residential real estate. From a potential tax on all-cash home purchases above $1 million to a proposed New York City second-home tax, the measures signal a broader shift toward more aggressive taxation of high-value and non-primary residential properties.

Measures under discussion include:
• A potential 1% tax on all-cash home purchases above $1 million
• A proposed New York City second-home tax targeting high-value second homes

Together, these measures could increase transaction and holding costs for investors, second-home owners, and high-net-worth buyers while influencing demand across the luxury housing market.

As part of ongoing budget negotiations, New York lawmakers are considering a new 1% tax on allcash home purchases of at least $1 million in New York City. Lawmakers are also discussing whether to expand the tax to similar transactions statewide, including in suburban and upstate markets. If approved, the tax would apply to buyers, adding another cost to luxury residential transactions.

The proposal comes as all-cash purchases continue to rise across New York. Higher interest rates and borrowing costs have pushed more buyers to avoid financing. In competitive markets such as New York City, sellers often favor cash buyers because those transactions typically close faster and face fewer financing-related delays.

At the same time, New York City is rethinking its broader property tax strategy. Earlier this year, Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed a 9.5% property tax increase to help close the city’s budget gap, but the plan quickly drew opposition from homeowners, business groups, and City Council members who warned it would further raise housing costs and add pressure to an already strained market.

After New York state committed additional funding and the city identified other budget adjustments, the administration backed away from the proposal. Instead, city leaders are backing a more targeted approach focused on high-value second homes.

The proposed second-home tax would target luxury homes valued at $5 million or more that are not used as a primary residence, although implementation details are still being finalized.

Key provisions being discussed include:
• Applying the tax only to second homes
• Targeting non-resident owners
• Adding an annual surcharge on top of existing property taxes
• Generating an estimated $500 million in annual revenue
• Potential exemptions for certain leased or occupied properties

City officials have positioned the proposal as a way to shift more of the tax burden to high-net-worth property owners who benefit from the New York real estate market without living in the city full time.

For non-resident owners, the proposal could materially increase the long-term cost of holding luxury New York City real estate. Unlike transfer taxes triggered by a sale or acquisition, the second-home tax would create an ongoing annual expense, and depending on the final rate structure, owners of properties valued between $10 million and $20 million could face substantial recurring tax exposure.

The proposal could also influence investor behavior, ownership decisions, and market activity in several ways, particularly for owners deciding whether to hold, lease, or reposition high-value properties. Some owners may choose to lease underused units to offset higher carrying costs, particularly if rental properties receive exemptions under the final rules. That shift could add supply to the luxury rental market.

Other owners may reevaluate residency status, ownership structures, and long-term investment plans. For out-of-state and international investors who hold New York real estate primarily as a passive asset, the added tax burden could change return expectations. Over time, targeted luxury housing taxes could also influence where investors choose to deploy capital, particularly as lowertax markets continue competing for high-net-worth residents and investment. Although the proposal targets a relatively small share of the housing market, it could still influence pricing and demand at the top end.

Potential effects include:
• Softer demand for luxury second homes
• Increased activity below the $5 million threshold
• Greater competition among luxury sellers
• Capital shifting toward lower-tax markets

Developers focused on luxury condominium projects may also watch how these proposals affect buyer demand, absorption rates, and pricing at the upper end of the market. Even so, because the luxury segment is relatively small, the proposal may have limited effects on the broader market.

The proposal could add compliance and reporting complexity for owners using LLCs, trusts, or other holding structures. If the tax moves forward, property valuation disputes and residency determinations could become more significant areas of scrutiny, and some investors may need to reevaluate how properties are titled and held.

Ownership through LLCs, trusts, or layered structures may receive closer scrutiny depending on how final legislation defines residency, beneficial ownership, and property use. For investors and developers with significant New York exposure, now may be the right time to review ownership structures, residency considerations, and long-term holding strategies.

New York’s proposed luxury and second-home taxes reflect a broader pattern emerging in highcost real estate markets across the U.S. and globally. Cities including San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Vancouver, and Toronto have introduced or explored taxes targeting vacant, underused, or non-primary residential properties.

As housing affordability pressures persist and municipalities look for new revenue sources, investors and developers may face greater scrutiny of underused and high-value real estate assets. For owners with multi-market portfolios, these policy shifts could shape investment, holding, and disposition decisions.

Taken together, these proposals reflect a broader shift in how New York is approaching real estate taxation. Instead of broad-based property tax increases that affect a wider range of residents, lawmakers are increasingly targeting luxury assets, second homes, and non-resident ownership.

For property owners, investors, and developers, the message is clear: New York policymakers are placing greater scrutiny on how high-value and underused real estate is taxed. As these proposals evolve, property owners and investors should closely monitor how they could affect acquisition strategy, holding costs, residency planning, and long-term portfolio performance.

Michigan: Property taxes are not the enemy

What do your neighborhood elementary school, a fire truck and a library have in common? They are all supported by property taxes — one of the main ways we pay for services provided by our local governments and schools. However, property taxes have come under attack as unfair or too high, most recently by way of a package of bills being considered by the Michigan House Government Operations Committee. While paying that tax twice a year may feel heavy for a lot of folks, completely dismantling a community’s ability to provide essential services is not the answer. Instead, Michigan should expand options for local governments to ensure they meet their residents’ needs and target relief to those who need it most.

The property tax is a powerful tool that pays for the necessities of life and things we all value, like good schools, public safety, community parks and water drainage systems. Property taxes are a stable and consistent form of revenue for local governments that are less distortionary than most other taxes. Research shows that property taxes are more conducive to economic growth than income taxes, and they are more equitable than sales taxes.

Property taxes, when spent correctly, can make communities safer and more prosperous and raise a homeowner’s net worth in return. This is why taxing property is one of the most traditional forms of raising revenue: it works!

In addition to the stability and consistency of property taxes, Michiganders as a whole are not overburdened by them. Property tax revenue, after adjusting for inflation, has increased slightly since 2004 and has just now recovered from the Great Recession. In 2024 dollars, Michigan communities raised an equivalent of $21 billion in 2007 and raised $20.5 billion in 2024.

So property tax revenue hasn’t moved much in the last 20 years despite property values climbing. As a percentage of total personal income, property tax revenue fell from 4.7% in 1993 to approximately 3% today. Though some communities are disproportionately affected by high property tax rates, namely Highland Park and Detroit, Michiganders as a whole are not really paying more in property taxes, despite an increasingly loud narrative that we are.

The stagnant tax revenue exists because over the years, Michigan voters and lawmakers have made great efforts to control the growth in property taxes: the Headlee Amendment in 1978 and Proposition A in 1994.

While restricting tax increases may seem appealing to homeowners, research consistently shows that limitations on property tax growth don’t achieve their goals and result in an inadequate and inequitable tax system. They disincentivize the construction of new and affordable homes, and create confusing, opaque rules that most homeowners don’t understand until it’s too late. The Headlee Amendment and Prop A have led to distortions in the housing market, rewarding long-term homeowners and hurting new, often younger homeowners.

At the same time, state laws limit local governments’ abilities to levy other revenue options, making them largely reliant on property taxes. Limiting local governments to one sole source of revenue further harms them because it doesn’t take into account differences between communities. So it isn’t the property tax that leads to these understandable frustrations; rather, it’s Michigan placing guardrails around local tax autonomy.

Big cuts to property taxes are not the answer. Broad property tax cuts unfairly benefit white, wealthy homeowners with high-value homes and vacation properties. In addition, lawmakers who cut property taxes often resort to far more regressive measures, like fees, fines and sales taxes to make up the difference. These replacements to the property tax unfairly fall on Michiganders with low incomes as well as communities with a high population of Black and Brown Michiganders.

A recent analysis from the Tax Foundation finds that attempts to replace the property tax exacerbate differences between communities, especially where communities are unable to fully backfill any revenue loss. None of these options will address the core issue, which is a lack of local tax autonomy. In fact, they may make it worse because communities will have less control over their budgets.

The real solution lies in expanding and diversifying revenue options for local governments while targeting relief to homeowners and renters who are disproportionately affected by the property tax, such as improving the Homestead Property Tax Credit. That way, we can pay our fair share for the vibrant communities we deserve.

Illinois: Cook County Property Tax Reform Group Announces New, Unified Method of Tax Rate Calculation between the Cook County Assessor and Cook County Board of Review

The Cook County Property Tax Reform Group today announced the implementation of a new unified, tax-rate calculation methodology to be jointly implemented for the 2026 Tax Year by the Cook County Assessor’s Office (CCAO) and the Cook County Board of Review (BOR) — a major step forward in aligning valuation practices, improving consistency across reassessment cycles and strengthening transparency for taxpayers.

The methodology is the result of reform work launched in 2024 by the Cook County Property Tax Reform Group, led by Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. The group commissioned an independent audit of the County’s commercial valuation methodologies. The audit identified differences in methodology between the Assessor and Board of Review and recommended updates to both agencies’ tax rate and capitalization rate practices.

“This agreement reflects what reform looks like in practice: collaboration, transparency, and a commitment to getting the fundamentals right,” Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said. “For too long, differences between agencies created confusion for taxpayers and undermined confidence in the property tax system. By aligning the offices’ tax-rate methodologies, we are taking a meaningful step toward a more fair, predictable and accountable process.”

The shared methodology is intended to reduce discrepancies in valuation assumptions, improve predictability for property owners and taxing bodies, and advance ongoing modernization of Cook County’s property tax system.

Following the County’s commercial valuation audit, the President’s Office, CCAO, and BOR partnered with the Civic Consulting Alliance to translate the study’s recommendations into more than 40 detailed workstreams focused on improving collaboration, aligning valuation practices and increasing transparency. A key priority was establishing a unified approach for calculating tax rates and capitalization rates. Subcommittees that included commercial valuation analysts from both offices conducted a series of technical workshops to reconcile methodological differences, test alternative models and develop a shared approach that both offices agreed to adopt.

Both offices concurred that the first year of the reassessment cycle requires a distinct approach. A new, unified framework for determining tax rates will be implemented for the reassessment of the south and west suburbs in Tax Year 2026, which is the timing of the regional triad. This is significant because the south and west suburbs have a higher fluctuation of tax rates than other triads.

Under this new framework, the CCAO will estimate 2026 tax rates by applying historical rate-change patterns from the previous reassessment of the south and west suburbs in 2023. This same method will be used by the Board of Review when deciding appeals in the first year of the 2026 reassessment cycle.

For years two and three of the reassessment cycle, the offices’ methodologies will vary slightly due to the availability of data when they perform their respective duties, though they will approximate the previous year’s tax rate.

Both agencies have committed to updating their internal models and publicly releasing more information on their revised methodologies, marking one of the first coordinated changes stemming from the Property Tax Reform Group’s audit recommendations.

Alaska: In setback for oil companies, tax board raises trans-Alaska pipeline value by $3 billion

Alaska and three of its municipalities could be in line for an extra $60 million in oil industry tax revenue after a new ruling in a long-running feud over the value of the trans-Alaska pipeline system.

A state appeals board this week determined the property tax value of the enormous 50-year-old pipeline system, which moves crude 800 miles from the North Slope’s oil fields to the port town of Valdez, to be $13 billion. That’s some $3 billion more than an initial 2026 assessment from Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s administration — meaning the pipeline’s owners would owe $60 million more under the state’s 2% property tax regime.

Far more money could be at stake if, as anticipated, the oil companies that own the pipeline and pay the taxes — or the municipalities that collect a share of the taxes — appeal the decision in state court. A spokesperson for Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which operates the pipeline system, said the decision is under review by the owners. Alyeska is owned by affiliates of three of Alaska’s major oil producers: Hilcorp, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil.

Robin Brena, an Alaska attorney who has long represented the municipalities in pipeline property tax matters, said he expects both parties to appeal the decision. The dispute dates back decades. Alyeska and the municipalities spent years in court feuding over yearly assessments before reaching a settlement in 2016 that set the pipeline’s value at $8 billion — translating into an annual property tax bill of $160 million.

That money flows to both the state and municipalities; for Valdez, the taxes have represented more than half of the city’s regular recurring revenue. The North Slope and Fairbanks North Star boroughs also receive tens of millions of dollars.

After the settlement expired last year, the state Department of Revenue initially set the pipeline system’s updated value at $10.3 billion. Both the oil companies and municipalities appealed to the State Assessment Review Board, whose five members are appointed by the governor. The owners assert that the pipeline system’s value has been declining and is now $2.8 billion — equating to some $56 million in property tax payments.

The municipalities, meanwhile, say the system is depreciating at a much slower rate and still has decades of life left in it, buoyed by new oil development on the North Slope. They estimate that its value is closer to $20 billion, which would translate to some $400 million in property tax revenue.

Brena, the lawyer representing the municipalities, said he’s skeptical of the oil companies’ approach. “To me, the owners are advocating a position which has consistently been about 10% percent of the true value of TAPS,” he said, using the acronym for the pipeline system. “It looks like their motives are to lower their taxes rather than to get the assessment correct.”

The Department of Revenue’s 2026 assessment was based on a court-approved method of estimating the cost of replacing the pipeline, then accounting for depreciation. The state review board concluded that the revenue department used an improper method to calculate depreciation — focusing on past North Slope production rather than on proven oil reserves and expected future production.

The municipalities and oil companies have 30 days from May 22 to appeal the board’s decision to Alaska superior court. Similar pipeline tax cases before the 2016 settlement were appealed all the way to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Ohio: Pipeline tax debacle threatening to Ohio’s pro-business reputation

When that confidence begins to erode, so does Ohio’s competitive advantage. Niraj Antani served for over a decade as a State Senator and State Representative in the Ohio General Assembly.

During my time serving in the Ohio legislature, one of our top priorities was making Ohio a more attractive place for businesses to invest and expand.

Through pro-growth tax policies, regulatory reforms and efforts to create a stable business climate, state leaders have worked to position Ohio as a destination for job creators.

But a short-sighted decision by Ohio Tax Commissioner Patricia Harris risks undermining those efforts and making businesses more hesitant to invest in the Buckeye State.

At issue is how the state is choosing to value major infrastructure projects for tax purposes. While this may sound like a technical dispute, the broader implications are significant. Businesses considering large, long-term investments need confidence that Ohio’s tax and regulatory systems will operate fairly, predictably and in accordance with the law.

One current case involving the Rover Pipeline illustrates the problem. In 2013, Energy Transfer began development of the pipeline to expedite the transportation of natural gas from parts of the Appalachian Basin through Ohio and into other states.

Construction was completed in 2018, but severe weather delays pushed final construction costs to roughly $6.3 billion, more than 50% higher than the original estimate of $4.08 billion. At issue is whether those unforeseen cost overruns should automatically be treated as an increase in the pipeline’s taxable value.

The Ohio Constitution states that taxes are to be based on the “true value” of property, and the Ohio Supreme Court has similarly affirmed in prior property tax cases that value is based on what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller on the open market. In the case of the Rover Pipeline, however, Harris relied heavily on the project’s final construction costs rather than its actual market value. But just because construction costs were inflated does not mean the pipeline itself became more valuable.

The overruns were not driven by any expansion in the project’s size or scope, but largely by unusually severe weather delays caused by rainfall that reportedly exceeded historical averages by roughly 65%. Those conditions made the project more expensive to complete, but they did not increase the underlying value of the asset itself.

The issue was then compounded by Harris’ unrealistic assumptions that the pipeline would continue operating and generating revenue indefinitely while maintenance costs would remain largely fixed over time. Those assumptions strain credibility. Modern pipelines are generally designed with a lifespan of around 50 years and like any other major piece of infrastructure, maintenance costs inevitably increase as it ages.

Energy Transfer has now filed suit asking Ohio courts to affirm that the tax commissioner’s approach to the Rover Pipeline violated protections enshrined in both the Ohio and United States constitutions.

The company argues not only that the valuation itself was improper, but that due process protections were violated because proper notice was never given that unforeseen construction overruns could dramatically increase the project’s tax assessment.

Trust and predictability

Other companies are undoubtedly watching closely, as the outcome will send a message about Ohio’s commitment to maintaining a stable and predictable business climate. Industries weighing where to locate facilities or make long-term investments consider far more than economic incentives alone. Trust in the fairness and consistency of state government is often just as important. This is especially true in the energy sector, which supports more than 351,000 jobs across Ohio and plays a major role in the state’s economic future.

Ohio has worked hard to build a reputation as a pro-growth state that welcomes investment and major infrastructure development. That progress should not be jeopardized by tax policies that create uncertainty for employers and investors.

If this approach is allowed to stand, it could create a troubling precedent for how future economic development and infrastructure projects are assessed and taxed in Ohio.

Either Commissioner Harris should reconsider her assessment of the Rover Pipeline, or the courts should step in to ensure Ohio continues to provide the fair and predictable business environment that companies expect when investing in our state.

CANADA

British Columbia: The biggest tax inequity most property owners never see

Governments frequently assure taxpayers that the property assessment system is fair and equitable. Most people accept that claim because they assume a government-administered system must be designed to treat everyone equally. The reality may be quite different.

One of the least understood aspects of property taxation is that many smaller property owners may be paying a disproportionately higher share of property taxes than owners of larger and often more valuable properties. This sounds difficult to believe, but property owners who take the time to compare assessments, lot sizes, assessed land values, and taxes among similar properties often discover significant inconsistencies. In many cases, smaller lots are assessed at substantially higher rates per square foot than larger lots with similar characteristics.

Real estate professionals have long recognized the principle of diminishing returns: as lot size increases, the value per square foot generally decreases. Yet many property owners are finding assessments that appear inconsistent with that principle, resulting in substantial differences in tax burdens between comparable properties.

When property owners appeal their assessments, they do so for one reason: they believe their property has not been assessed fairly relative to comparable properties.

Unfortunately, those concerns are often dismissed. BC Assessment frequently points out that only a small percentage of property owners file appeals each year. While that statistic may be accurate, it does not necessarily prove that assessments are fair. Many property owners simply do not understand the appeal process, do not have access to comparable data, or believe the system is too difficult to challenge.

The result is that many taxpayers continue paying assessments they may never have questioned. Property taxation is one of the largest annual expenses facing homeowners. It deserves greater transparency, greater scrutiny, and a system that taxpayers can trust is truly equitable.

EUROPE

Greece: Extra burden on homeowners

Additional levies, which can reach up to three times the current levels, would be imposed on property owners by the Local Government Code, put up for consultation until June 4, in an Interior Ministry bill. It establishes two new property ownership taxes, which are expected to bring a two or three times greater burden in total compared to the current level.

The Local Development Fee is coming to replace the current Real Estate Fee (TAP) and the Electrified Premises Tax, which is itself a higher burden. This is because it will be calculated with a coefficient ranging from 0.03% to 0.07% on the square meters of the surface of each property, multiplied by the objective zone price per square meter, which applies in the area of the property and by the age coefficient of the property.

TAP is calculated with lower coefficients, ranging from 0.025% to 0.035%, while the Electrified Premises Tax ranges from €0.02 to €0.07 per year, per square meter of surface with electricity. At the same time, the new code also includes a new Regional Development Fee, with a coefficient from 0.015% to 0.035% on the taxable (“objective”) value of the property. The revenues from the regional fee will be allocated exclusively to the financing of projects under the responsibility of the region.

Depending on the applied rate, the new Local Development Fee is expected to cost up to €67 per year for a property of 80 square meters and an objective value of €160,000, provided it is over 25 years old. The corresponding cost for the Regional Development Fee for the same property is set at up to €56.

Therefore, an estimated amount of €123 per year results from these two fees, which is higher than current dues. It may even be three times higher if the highest rate is imposed.

This is because the sum of the two fees translates into a rate of 0.035% to 0.10% for each property, depending on what policy each municipality and each region will choose. According to the Panhellenic Federation of Property Owners, it is similar to the cost of the old ETAK, the “forerunner” of today’s Single Property Tax (ENFIA).

 

 

Compliments of the International Property Tax Institute – a member of the EACCNY