IPTI’s usual monthly newsletter – the “President’s Message” – contains, inter alia, a number of 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

The best — and worst — states for property taxes in 2026

Property taxes raise more money than any other tax in the U.S., and almost none of the rate-setting happens in a state capital. In fiscal 2023, the tax supplied 28.9% of every dollar collected by state and local governments combined, and 70.0% of what local governments brought in on their own, according to the Tax Foundation. That money pays for school districts, county sheriffs, fire and ambulance crews, parks and the pavement outside a homeowner’s front door.

Counties, municipalities and overlapping special districts set the rates, so the distance between the lightest and heaviest burdens is wide. Measured as taxes paid against home value, effective rates run from about 0.29% at the bottom of the national range to 1.88% at the top. Two houses worth the same amount can carry annual bills that differ by thousands of dollars depending on which side of a state line they sit on.

The best and worst states for property taxes in 2026 sort along a fairly predictable logic. New Hampshire and Texas land near the top of the burden scale in part because neither collects a broad personal income tax. Both also assign local governments more responsibility for services that other states pay for out of the state budget. New Jersey and Illinois are a different case: they tax property heavily and keep rates high in the other major categories too, so homeowners there get no offsetting break.

At the low end, states hold bills down through constitutional limits on assessment growth, homestead exemptions and reduced assessment ratios for owner-occupied homes. Tourism and excise revenue cushion the gap in a few of them.

This list sorts states by effective property tax rate rather than by millage, which is the only way to compare them fairly. Stated rates mean different things in different places, since each state decides how much of a home’s market value gets assessed and which exemptions come off the top first. The figures cover owner-occupied housing only, so they leave out what businesses and landlords pay. The states below have held their positions at opposite ends of the ranking for years.

International Property Tax Institute E: ipti@ipti.org www.ipti.org

Hawaii has the lowest effective property tax rate of any state, with homeowners paying about 0.29% of their home’s value each year — the bottom of the national range the Tax Foundation tracks. The rate holds even though Hawaii has some of the highest median home values in the U.S.

The explanation is structural. Hawaii’s counties administer the property tax, since the state has no township or independent school district layer beneath them. Public schools run through a single statewide system financed at the state level, which removes the cost driver that pushes local levies upward almost everywhere else. The state also collects heavily through its general excise tax, which applies broadly to goods and services, and through taxes on tourism and transient accommodations. Counties face less pressure to raise homeowner rates to pay for basic services. Hawaii’s position at the bottom of the ranking is long-running rather than a recent shift.

A low percentage applied to expensive real estate still produces a real bill. A house on Oahu or Maui worth more than $1 million can owe several thousand dollars a year at a rate under a third of a percent, so the dollar figure is far from token for owners of high-value coastal or resort property.

The counties also draw a sharp line between residents and everyone else. Primary residences qualify for a home exemption that subtracts a fixed amount from assessed value before any rate applies, and counties place non-owner-occupied homes, residential investment property, and short-term rentals in higher-taxed classes. An absentee owner can owe considerably more than the resident next door on a comparable house.

Buyers calculating the total cost of ownership should weigh the rate against everything around it: purchase prices among the highest in the country, elevated insurance and shipping-driven consumer costs, and a state income tax whose top bracket reaches 11%. The property tax break offsets part of that, not all of it.

Alabama and Colorado both sit near the low end of the national property tax range, and neither gets there mainly through low rates. Both tax only a fraction of a home’s value, so the base a local millage rate applies to is far smaller than the market price. Alabama’s constitution sorts property into classes and assesses owner-occupied housing at 10% of appraised value. A house appraised at

$200,000 carries a taxable value of $20,000 before any exemption. Homestead exemptions for owner-occupants cut that base further.

County figures show the effect. In Autauga County, a median annual bill of $627 against a median home value of $207,200 works out to an effective rate of 0.28%. Choctaw County’s median bill of

$207 on a median value of $123,400 comes to 0.18%. Raising millage rates in Alabama generally requires a vote of local residents, which slows how fast bills climb alongside home values.

The revenue side absorbs the difference, and Alabama school districts lean more on sales taxes and state appropriations than districts in most other states.

Colorado also taxes residential property on a share of its actual value rather than the full amount. The legislature now sets the residential assessment rate, a job that fell to it after voters repealed

the Gallagher Amendment in 2020. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, approved in 1992, requires voter approval for tax rate increases and limits how fast government revenue can grow. A rising housing market therefore does not automatically produce a proportionally larger bill.

That gap between prices and bills is a matter of design. Front Range metros and mountain resort counties have seen steep appreciation, and local governments and school districts have had to take specific funding requests back to voters rather than collect the increase automatically. A buyer moving from New Jersey or Illinois can pay more for a Colorado house and still owe less each year, inverting the usual relationship between property taxes and purchase price.

Louisiana and South Carolina hold effective property tax rates near the bottom of the national range by shrinking the taxable value of a primary residence before any local rate touches it. Neither relies on unusually low millage. Both write exemptions and assessment ratios to favor the owner- occupant.

Louisiana assesses residential property at 10% of fair market value, then applies a homestead exemption covering the first $75,000 of market value, or $7,500 in assessed value, on an owner’s principal residence. A home worth $200,000 is assessed at $20,000 and taxed on $12,500 once the exemption comes off. The exemption covers parish taxes but generally not municipal ones, so a house inside city limits can carry a different bill than an identical house just outside them. Because the exemption is a flat dollar figure rather than a percentage, it wipes out a far larger share of a modest home’s value than of an expensive one. Owners of lower-priced homes in rural parishes often owe very little to parish taxing bodies as a result.

South Carolina classifies property rather than exempting a slice of it. A legal residence is assessed at 4% of market value, while second homes, rental units, and most other real property are assessed at 6%. The owner of a vacation house on Hilton Head Island pays tax on half again as much taxable value as a full-time neighbor in a comparable home. Act 388, passed in 2006, exempted owner- occupied homes from school operating millage and limited reassessment increases to 15% over a five-year cycle, funding the shift with a one-cent increase in the state sales tax.

Rates still vary across Louisiana’s 64 parishes and South Carolina’s 46 counties, and both states lean harder on sales tax to cover what property levies don’t. For a full-time resident, the arithmetic holds either way: the bill is figured on a fraction of what the house would sell for.

New Jersey carries the heaviest effective property tax rate in the country, the top of a national range that reaches 1.88% of owner-occupied home value. A homeowner there pays a larger share of their property’s worth in annual taxes than an owner in any other state, and high home values push the dollar figure higher still. The structure behind that number is unusual. New Jersey does not use property taxes as a replacement for other revenue, the way New Hampshire and Texas do.

Income and sales taxes are steep there as well, so the annual property bill arrives without an offsetting break anywhere else. The Tax Foundation groups New Jersey with Illinois on this point, setting both apart from states that lean on local levies instead of a broad income tax.

Local fragmentation adds to the total. The state is divided into more than 500 municipalities, each with its own budget, its own services and, in many cases, its own school district or a shared arrangement with a neighbor. Duplicated administration across small, independently governed jurisdictions raises the cost of delivering those services, and property taxes cover most of it.

Consolidation gets proposed regularly and happens rarely, since municipal identity and local school control are politically protected.

Trenton capped annual property tax levy increases at 2% in 2010. The cap slowed growth without changing New Jersey’s standing against other states, and bills in many suburban counties still run into five figures a year.

For a buyer, the annual carrying cost deserves as much attention as the purchase price. A house in a Bergen or Essex County suburb can generate a tax bill comparable to a second mortgage payment, and that obligation does not disappear once the mortgage is paid off. Property taxes surface in nearly every New Jersey gubernatorial race, though the funding structure underneath them has proven durable.

Illinois sits near the very top of the national property tax ranking, and the reason is less a single high rate than the number of governments sharing one bill. The state contains thousands of overlapping taxing districts — counties, townships, municipalities, school districts, park districts, library districts, fire protection districts, and assorted special-purpose authorities — each with its own levying power.

A homeowner in a typical Chicago-area suburb can sit inside a dozen or more of those jurisdictions at once. The bill arrives as a list of separate line items, each tied to a different unit of government. No individual district’s rate has to look extreme for the stacked total to land well above what owners pay in most other states. That structure also makes a tax bill hard to read, since trimming one district’s levy barely moves the combined figure.

Pension costs sit underneath much of it. Illinois carries large unfunded retirement obligations for teachers, police, firefighters, and other public employees. Local governments have leaned on property tax levies to cover those commitments rather than current services. Revenue raised for that purpose funds past promises rather than new classrooms or squad cars.

Illinois also differs from states that trade one tax for another. The Tax Foundation draws a line between the two approaches. New Hampshire and Texas lean on property levies as a substitute for a broad income tax. Illinois charges steep property bills while also taxing income and sales at significant rates.

Cook County and the collar counties, including Lake, DuPage, and Will, post some of the steepest bills in dollar terms. Downstate owners face high effective rates as well, because home values there are lower while the count of taxing bodies is not. Proposals to consolidate districts or restructure

pensions surface regularly in Springfield, but the volume of local governments and negotiated employee contracts has kept change slow.

Indiana: Assessed value increases hitting businesses, too

Indiana businesses are experiencing what many homeowners have seen in recent years: dramatic jumps in the assessed values of their real property. In 2026, the statewide assessed value of all types of property is going up 9.7% compared to 2025. Residential property, which is just over half of the assessed value in Indiana, increased 7.3%.

For business property, the increases were more dramatic. Commercial property is up 15.0%. Industrial property values, of most concern to the Indiana Manufacturers Association, are up 25.8%.

These increases in business property assessed values, which represent the biggest one-year jump in years, happened due to two primary factors.

First, manufacturing is growing. Factories are expanding and big projects are taking place in Indiana. This growth and the reclassification of ground from agricultural property to commercial/industrial adds to the overall assessment number. And in some counties, huge increases in industrial assessed value are clearly tied to big projects like data centers.

Secondly, inflation has hit the assessment system. The state updated the data used by counties to measure the cost of construction, which is the basis for industrial assessments. It had been four years since the last update, and during that period the cost of labor and materials increased substantially. The state also adjusted the way it measures costs in Indiana compared to other states, contributing further to increased values.

Assessments are just the start of the process to determine how much a property taxpayer owes. Local governments and schools determine the spending and associated tax rates that are placed on local property owners. And homeowners and businesses alike are eligible for significant tax benefits that change the overall tax liability.

State leaders have repeatedly sought to address the problem of increasing homeowner assessed values and the corresponding property tax increases. The latest effort passed in 2025 and made significant cuts for homeowners, most of which are spread out over the next couple of years. There were also tax breaks for agricultural land and business equipment. The changes to the assessment of business equipment allow greater depreciation for older equipment; and like the changes to homeowner taxes, the equipment changes also phase in over the coming years.

Of the over $1.5 billion in property tax cuts for 2026-2028 that were the result of the 2025 legislation, more than 80% will go to homeowners. For business taxpayers, the property tax cuts for homeowners will be offset in part by shifting the tax burden to business. As homeowners pay less and local units keep taxes the same, other property taxpayers must pick up the difference.

This experience from 2025 shows how further cuts to homeowners can shift the property tax burden to business taxpayers. The fact that there is such high growth in business assessed value means there is even greater risk of additional property tax increases for Indiana’s employers. Simply put, rising values for businesses, plus added cuts to homeowners (both those already passed in 2025 and any that may be debated in the upcoming legislative session), could result in big property tax increases for Indiana businesses, particularly industrial property owners like manufacturers.

Manufacturers and other businesses have dealt with the rising cost of labor, parts, raw materials, transportation, insurance, and most other business costs in recent years. Now inflation is hitting business property assessments hard and a further shift of the property tax burden to businesses could follow. Indiana leaders must be mindful of the economic impact to the state that may occur by further shifting the tax burden to the business community.

CANADA

Ontario: Taxing delay on property assessments

Imagine an out-of-date tax structure that leaves a lot of people paying less than they should. At this time of affordability concerns that sounds pretty good – for them, at least. But what if that missing tax revenue is being covered by other people, who are paying more than they should? Suddenly this seems grossly unfair. Unfortunately, this is not just a thought exercise. This is exactly the situation facing people in Ontario, where municipal property reassessments have not been done in a decade.

Having left the system on hold for so long, the government says somewhat unconvincingly that it is consulting on how best to resume normal assessments. Here’s some free advice: just do it. There’s no excuse for continuing to force some people to carry an undue share of the tax burden.

The Globe and Mail has been running a series of articles and columns recently on how to overhaul the tax system to boost productivity, improve fairness across generations and encourage construction of rental homes. But the existing system also has to be run better. And the situation in Ontario is a good place to start.

Property taxes in Ontario are determined based on two factors: the local tax rate, as set by local politicians, and the estimated value of the property. That value is determined by the Municipal Property Tax Assessment Corporation, which answers to the province.

Until 2016, MPAC did reassessments every four years and phased in any changes in value over the ensuing four-year period. However, the 2020 assessment was derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

There has not been another one since, even though property values have changed a lot over those 10 years.

The value of a property is used to determine how much tax it is levied because that value has been seen as a proxy for owner wealth. It’s an imperfect rationale – other approaches could involve taxing property size, which affects the cost of providing municipal services, or taxing improvements to the land or property – but this is longstanding policy in Ontario.

It’s important to note that a changed value assigned to a property by MPAC does not, in and of itself, lead to property tax increases or decreases. In Ontario, what matters is how its value changes compared to the average in that community. Properties that go up more than the average face higher taxes. Those that lag the average get tax cuts. The pie remains the same size but its composition gets rebalanced.

And therein lies the problem. The properties with above-average value increases since 2016 are not being charged the higher taxes they should be. These fortunate people are being subsidized by people whose properties had below-average appreciation. Let the unfairness of that sink in.

At this point it’s impossible to know for sure just who is in which group. But since not all properties in the province have appreciated at exactly the average over the last 10 years, not doing reassessments has created winners and losers. And that situation is being exacerbated the longer the system is left out of balance.

According to Paul Sullivan, a B.C. property-tax consultant quoted in a recent Globe story, property owners likely to be paying more than they should be include residents of a Toronto inner suburb called Scarborough and fully half of Toronto condo owners.

This issue affects commercial properties as well. Mr. Sullivan believes that many small main-street retailers are paying more than their share. At the same time, reassessments could hurt other small retailers, because zoning changes to what is allowed near transit, for example, could lead to higher tax bills.

The situation is undoubtedly thorny. Ontarians who are reassessed and face spikes in their tax bill will not be happy. But these same people have been getting a break for years. And the money has to come from somewhere, so contriving some way to cushion them from any coming increase just perpetuates the unfairness of the current situation. There are no easy solutions and the government is simply making the problem worse by letting it drag on year after year.

It’s wrong to argue, as Ontario Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy did when glossing over government’s lack of urgency, that “what people want is certainty” in this time of economic peril. In fact, the looming threat of a tax increase is the opposite of certainty. Even if that were not the case, stability cannot come at the price of unfairness.

EUROPE

Estonia: Land tax could double in three Estonian municipalities in 2027

Land tax could rise by up to 100 percent in Kohtla-Järve, Ruhnu and Tori next year, Postimees reported, citing rates published by Estonia’s Tax and Customs Board, Postimees reports.

The three municipalities have selected the maximum annual increase allowed under current law. Kohila has set a 60 percent increase limit, while Tartu, Sillamäe, Saku, Raasiku, Narva-Jõesuu and Loksa have opted for 50 percent.

Municipalities set their own land-tax rates and annual increase limits, which range from 10 to 100 percent. However, individual bills also depend on homeowner tax relief, which municipalities can set at up to €1,000.

Homeowners whose relief exceeds their tax bill will have nothing to pay. Homes located on commercial land do not qualify for homeowner relief and can face rates of up to 2 percent of the land’s taxable value.

Some municipalities also offer pensioner relief, including €250 in Paide, €100 in Lüganuse and €1,000 in Tartu. Annual tax rates range from 0.1 to 1 percent for residential land and farmyards, 0.1 to 0.5 percent for agricultural land and 0.1 to 2 percent for other land.

Tallinn has selected residential and commercial rates halfway below the respective ceilings, while Tartu applies the maximum in all categories.

Greece: Launch a big data platform for property values

Greece’s Ministry of National Economy and Finance is moving towards the systematic recording of market property values through a provision in a multi-bill submitted for public consultation, which will lead to the establishment of a Property Value Database.

Under Article 354, the new digital platform will collect information on property transfers, leases and valuations from public and private-sector entities, with the aim of creating a unified system for monitoring the real estate market. The measure seeks to address the fragmentation of available data, enabling the state to track price movements by geographical area and property category.

The Property Value Database will be maintained by the ministry’s Autonomous Department for Property Valuations and Value Determination and will operate through the “Digital Services for Public Property and National Endowments” information system (PSYDIPЕEK).

The key change lies in the ability to utilise information held by the private sector. In addition to data from public registers, the database will be able to draw on information from estate agency networks, banks, valuation bodies and other organisations with access to real estate market data.

The transfer of information will be governed by cooperation agreements specifying the sources, types of data and technical procedures for information exchange. Cooperation with private-sector entities is particularly significant in a market where advertised asking prices often differ from the prices ultimately agreed in transactions.

The provision calls for the collection of data without personal information identifying natural or legal persons, in accordance with the European and national personal data protection framework. Detailed operating conditions, data retention periods and security measures will be determined by a joint ministerial decision.

The establishment of the Property Value Database forms part of a broader effort to transition towards a system for determining taxable property values that systematically incorporates market data. Information from the database is intended to support the Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system for property valuation.

The system can use information on transactions, property locations and individual characteristics to support mass property valuations. However, the introduction of the Property Value Database does not automatically entail changes to Greece’s administratively determined taxable property values, known as objective values.

The last nationwide adjustment of property tax zone prices took place in 2021 and came into effect on 1 January 2022. Since then, residential property prices have risen significantly in many areas, widening the gap between values used for taxation purposes and those prevailing in the market. According to publicly announced government plans, the next nationwide adjustment is scheduled for 2028, subject to the relevant decision being adopted.

UK: Enforce online shopping tax to support UK high streets, Healey told

Chancellor John Healey should impose a 2 per cent tax on internet purchases to support physical high street businesses across the UK, an influential think tank has urged. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) also recommended a 1 per cent tax on click and collect services. It comes as Mr Healey prepares to present the government’s upcoming financial statement on October 28.

Aditi Sriram, an economist at the IPPR, pressed the government to “shift some of the tax burden from bricks to clicks”, arguing that online retailers do not face the same hurdles as traditional high street shops. An estimated £1.5 billion could be raised by the measures, the think tank said, with funds allocated towards a reduction in business rates for leisure, hospitality and retail outlets.

The body, which has previously been linked to the Labour Party, said a business’s initial £500,000 in

annual remote sales would be tax-exempt to safeguard smaller retailers. Small businesses could be

£1,400 better off annually and larger firms roughly £2,500, the IPPR calculated, with local authorities “fully compensated” for lost business rates revenue.

Mr Sriram, author of the IPPR report, said: “Britain’s tax system was built for an era when the location where you did business was closely linked to how much business you did. That is no longer the case. “As people have moved their shopping online, high street shops and restaurants continue to face large, fixed tax bills simply because they need physical premises.

“The government should shift some of the tax burden from bricks to clicks and use the money to

cut bills for the businesses that bring people onto our high streets.

“Online shopping is here to stay. The question is whether the tax system catches up with the economy we now have.”

The IPPR has also proposed a decrease in the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates multipliers in England, which are currently 38.2p for small properties and 43p for standard ones.

As a result of the proposed online sales tax, these would be reduced to 28.2p and 41p respectively, the IPPR said.

Andy Burnham unveiled a £210 million package aimed at regenerating communities last month.

The Prime Minister pledged to “restore pride and bring hope back” to high streets by revamping

vacant shopping centres, disused cinemas and abandoned local eyesores across England.

 

Compliments of International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) a Member of the EACCNY