IPTI | Property Tax in the News – November 2026

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

I am pleased to draw your attention to a paper recently published by the London School of
Economics and Political Science titled “Wealth and Property Taxation in the United States”.
The Abstract to this 71-page erudite academic research paper states:
“We study the history and geography of wealth accumulation in the United States using newly
collected historical property tax records from the early 1800s onward. These records come
from the administration of the General Property Tax – a tax that aspired to cover all types of
property. We construct wealth series at the state, county, and national levels. At the state
level, we use annual assessed values of wealth from state-level reports drawn from multiple
sources. Because assessed values may differ from market values, we also require assessment
ratios, defined as the ratio of assessed to market wealth. We obtain state-level assessment
ratios from decadal U.S. Census wealth data (drawn from various census reports, including
those on “Wealth, Debt, and Taxation”), in which the census carried out detailed valuation
work, complemented with information on changes in assessment practices from the state
reports, to build higher-frequency series of assessment ratios.
The result is long-run annual wealth series for states from 1850 (or earlier, depending on the
state) to 1935. We obtain national wealth series by aggregating these state series. At the
county level, we use assessed values (or market values where available) from the U.S. Census
wealth data for each decade and apply either state-level or county-level assessment ratios,
where available, to obtain market values of wealth for each decade from 1850 to 1930. We use
these data to show, first, that the United States experienced extraordinary wealth
accumulation after the Civil War and until the Great Depression. Second, spatial inequality in
the United States has been large and highly persistent since the mid-1800s. We also examine
the determinants of long-term wealth growth and find, among other results, that counties
with a higher share of enslaved property before the Civil War or with higher wealth inequality
experienced lower subsequent long-run wealth growth.”

The Introduction to the paper states:
“Since colonial times, local governments in the United States relied on various forms of
property taxation to finance their activities. But unlike in most other countries and historical
periods, these taxes applied to a broad set of assets – in principle, all property – rather than
only land. After the 1840s, the basic principles became more uniform across states and the
taxes more comprehensive. They came to be known as the General Property Tax.
From the 1840s to 1930, the General Property Tax was a core element of the U.S. fiscal system,
providing a large share of state and local revenues. Property was assessed by local assessors
who determined its value, with the tax base covering most forms of property. In practice,
local and state taxes encompassed by this term had varying levels of coverage of different
types of property, which are difficult to formally document, especially at the local level.
Nevertheless, we argue that coverage was high, allowing us to capture most taxable wealth.
Multiple layers of government – districts, municipalities, counties, and states – levied their own
ad valorem taxes, typically applying the same rate to most property. After the 1930s, the role
of the property tax declined as new forms of taxation replaced it. The tax evolved into the
modern U.S. property tax, which applies only to certain types of real estate.
The administration of the General Property Tax generated detailed but disparate records over
a long period. In this article, we make use of these valuable records that we collected and
organized to create a new data set on U.S. wealth over the long run at the national, state, and
county levels.
In our context, “wealth” means private, marketable, and taxable assets. Our definition
excludes public assets (such as federal land) and assets of tax-exempt entities such as
religious institutions and colleges. Marketable wealth refers to assets that can be bought and
sold, excluding human capital, except under slavery. Wealth measures for this period are
exceedingly rare, and producing them is our main contribution. Although some historical
national wealth estimates exist, our data based on the General Property Tax provide a
coherent, high-frequency, and long-run source. To our knowledge, no other data set offers
similarly comprehensive and long-term subnational property measures.
We use our new data to answer the following core questions. First, how did aggregate wealth
evolve in this crucial period of U.S. development? Second, how was property distributed
across space, and how did spatial inequality change over time? Third, what factors shaped
local capital accumulation and growth?
We provide a brief overview here, with extensive detail in Sections IV and V. The main
challenge is that assessors often did not value property at its market price, and assessment
practices varied across time and place.

We therefore need to adjust assessed values to obtain true market values. Such adjustment
requires the assessment ratio, defined as the ratio of assessed wealth to market wealth. With
both assessed wealth and assessment ratios, we can reconstruct the market value of wealth.
At the state level, we use a large set of detailed state reports, usually annual, to construct our
assessed wealth series. These reports vary in format and naming across time and states,
making their collection both valuable and challenging. To obtain assessment ratios, we start
with U.S. Census wealth data, which provide decadal (and in some cases more frequent) data.
The census conducted detailed valuation work to produce these ratios, as we describe in
detail, by consulting professionals and experts and sending agents into the field. We
supplement this with information from the state reports that document changes in
assessment practices for additional years. Combining these sources allows us to build high-
frequency series of assessment ratios. Applying these ratios to the assessed wealth series
yields high-frequency (annual) market wealth series. We then construct national series by
aggregating the state series.
At the county level, our main data source is U.S. Census wealth data, which provide decadal
assessed values for most years and market values for some years. For our benchmark series,
we correct county assessed values using state-level assessment ratios and construct
alternative series for years when county-level ratios are available and show that our results
are robust to different assumptions.
Our final series thus encompass (i) annual data for states from 1850 or earlier (depending on
the state) to 1935, (ii) decadal data for counties between 1850 and 1930, and (iii) national-level
data from the early 1800s to 1935. It is important to keep in mind that data before 1850 are
scarce and less reliable, as we describe in the main text. Therefore, we provide the full data
set for all available years but restrict our core analysis to the post-1850 period.”
Comment: The foregoing introductory extracts provide only a “taste” of what the full paper
provides. The paper itself is available via the link below:
https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/138239/
Time now to move on to IPTI matters. October involved a “blitz” of in-person events in various
parts of Canada. The first of these was the Conference of Valuation Agencies (CoVA 2026)
which was held in Ottawa. This two-day event, facilitated by IPTI, was very well attended by
speakers and delegates from around the world. Part of the conference was devoted to panel
sessions which looked at the research carried out in relation to Phase 2 of the International
Collaboration Project. This research, undertaken by Focus Groups with members drawn from
North America, Europe, Australasia and elsewhere, culminated in two White Papers that have
been published on the IPRI website.

CoVA 2026 provided an opportunity for members of those Focus Groups to share some of
their experience in carrying out the research and providing their reports. Phase 3 of the
project was also announced at the conference. More information about the research topics
for Phase 3 will be published shortly.
I am pleased to announce that, following discussions at CoVA 2026, the National Council for
Real Estate Assessment (NCREA) in The Netherlands kindly agreed to join the International
Collaboration Project Steering Group.
CoVA 2026 also enabled staff from the UK Valuation Office – who had been hosted by
organisations in various countries around the world – to feed back on their experience. This
“practical” exercise in international collaboration has encouraged other valuation agencies to
get involved in similar externship exercises.
Following CoVA 2026, IPTI held a meeting of international colleagues at its head office in
Toronto. This meeting looked at how the property tax system in Ontario compares with other
selected jurisdictions around the world. The meeting drew upon material which will be
published soon in the COST-IPTI International Property Tax Scorecard.
The next in-person event I attended was the IAAO’s 2026 Annual Conference which, this year,
was held in Calgary. There was definitely a “cowboy feel” to this conference which was
entirely appropriate as the event was being held in the home of the Calgary Stampede! As
always, the four-day conference was a mix of interesting plenary sessions, informative
education sessions, and a great social programme.
Towards the end of the month, IPTI held another webinar in its series delivered jointly with
the Institute of Municipal Assessors. This IMA-IPTI webinar was titled “Income Approach –
Challenges in Today’s Market” and our two experienced speakers provided the audience with
lots of interesting information about how to deal with the issues that arise.
In relation to IPTI events, we have several in-person conferences coming up over the next two
months. Full details about all these events, along with other webinars, workshops, etc., are
available on our website: www.ipti.org.
Now it’s time for a quick look at what is making headlines concerning property taxes in
selected jurisdictions and countries around the world. For more information, and links to the
original news articles, please refer to IPTI Xtracts which can be found on our website:
https://www.ipti.org/ipti-xtracts

Starting in Pakistan, the World Bank has recently called for property tax reforms. The Bank
called for reforms to provincial property taxation through harmonised and more market-
based valuation frameworks, noting that both sectors remain significantly under-taxed
despite their substantial contribution to the economy. The Bank stated that property taxation
remains severely underutilised, generating only around 0.13 percent of GDP compared with
0.3 to 0.6 percent in many comparable economies.
Moving on to the USA, it is reported that state tangible personal property tax laws often
discriminate against technology that is crucial to serve the demands of the information age,
according to new research released by the National Taxpayers Union. The complex
depreciation schedules required to value property are designed around manufacturing
machinery that often performs at the same level after a decade or more of use. Applying the
same standards to data centers can significantly overvalue equipment like computer servers,
which are often obsolete after three years. “State taxation of tangible personal property is
particularly harmful to capital-intensive businesses like data centers, and certain
characteristics of data centers result in uniquely aggressive TPP tax burdens compared to
other industries,” according to the paper written by a NTU Senior Fellow. “Policymakers
should pursue a level playing field, ideally moving away from the outdated notion of taxing
personal property, but at minimum avoiding policies that impose particularly heavy taxation
on specific industries, like data centers.” For example, Florida’s tangible personal property tax
laws value a three-year-old server at 56% of its original cost. Meanwhile, Indiana, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington classify a server at 40% of its original cost after three
years, even though its market value is close to nothing. Tax burdens that value antiquated
technology well above its actual market value lead to higher prices on consumers and
businesses when they pay for technology services like hosting, according to the research.
Moving on to Canada, and Ontario in particular, there is continuing criticism of the provincial
government’s decision to delay a reassessment of properties. A recent article states: “…
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.
Page | 6
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.
This issue affects commercial properties as well. One commentator 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.” Comment: I entirely agree!
And finally, I have to confess to a conflict of interest. As a “Swiftie”, I think it is a bit unfair to
refer to a “mansion tax” as a “Taylor Swift tax”. However, as the President of IPTI, I must
maintain strict neutrality in respect of property tax issues! It is wearing my “neutral hat” that
I report that, in Rhode Island, where the so-called Taylor Swift tax has been introduced for
non-owner-occupied R.I. properties valued at over $1 million, there have been predictable
lawsuits launched over the introduction of the tax. The tax applies to all R.I. residential
properties assessed at over $1 million that are not occupied by their owner for 183 days of the
year or more, according to the Rhode Island Division of Taxation website. Owners are taxed
at a rate of $2.50 for every $500 of assessed value above the $1 million threshold. Comment:
It will be interesting to see how the lawsuits, which mostly claim that the new property tax is
unconstitutional, progress.

Paul Sanderson JP LLB (Hons) FRICS FIRRV
President, International Property Tax Institute

Compliments of International Property Tax Institute – a member of EACCNY