IPTI | Property Tax in the News – July 2025

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

Florida: Gov. DeSantis vetoes funding to study impact of eliminating property taxes

Gov. Ron DeSantis has vetoed $1 million for a study on the potential impacts of eliminating the property tax in Florida. DeSantis, at a news conference in Wildwood, said officials don’t need more data while also calling for a ballot measure next year to kill ad valorem taxes on homesteaded property. “We know what needs to be done, so let’s just do it,” DeSantis said, “and we will do it.” The funding was earmarked for the Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) to conduct a study of the state’s property tax structure and the subsequent spending of property tax revenue by local governments, with a focus on the taxation of homestead property. The study originated in tax legislation (HB 7031), which required the study’s completion by Nov. 1.

But DeSantis said he isn’t interested in a government analysis, and he criticized the Legislature for including the study in its budget. “Now there was actually a provision they put in the tax for a million dollars to this bureaucracy in Tallahassee called EDR,” DeSantis said, decrying it as “a state version” of the Congressional Budget Office. “I’ve been very nonplussed by their analysis. So I vetoed that because we don’t need to give a bureaucracy money to study this.” However, DeSantis has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to eliminate property taxes for homeowners. He called on the Legislature next year to vote on a constitutional amendment to be placed on the 2026 ballot, which would eliminate local governments’ ability to assess such levies. “I do not think you should have to pay just for the privilege of living in a house you already own. Now, we’ve run numbers on this stuff,” DeSantis said. “We’re going to do a lot of work over the next couple of months. But ultimately, you’re going to need to draft a joint resolution, and both houses are going to have to pass it. And then the voters are going to have to approve it.”

For his part, Senate President Ben Albritton, a Wauchula Republican, said he is in favor of immediately pursuing a proposal to eliminate property taxes. “We’re excited and energized about the momentum surrounding property tax relief. We are with the Governor and running to the fight,” Albritton told Florida Politics. “There are a lot of ideas out there, and we look forward to exploring the possibilities over the next several months. Ultimately, Florida voters will have a choice next November, and they will be the ones to decide whether or not to make property tax reform a reality.”

Rep. Lawrence McClure, a Dover Republican and House Budget Committee Chair, said the study originated as a Senate idea. “That was a Senate initiative. The House is the only chamber that has actual policy options being vetted by its members,” McClure said. “We still look forward to hearing the Senate and Governor’s thoughts on policy regarding property taxes. The House has proven we are all in for recurring tax cuts.”

Democrats in the Legislature expressed concern about moving too quickly on a proposal. “Beyond the House Select Committee on this, the Taxation & Budget Reform Commission must be appointed in 2027 to review and suggest changes to the law,” Rep. Allison Tant, a Tallahassee Democrat, posted on social media. Rep. Wyman Duggan, a Jacksonville Republican and chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, disagreed. He said the House always remained confident a House Select Committee on the topic could study and provided needed data in time to shape a measure for the 2026 ballot. He figures data could be ready by the end of this year.

“We are committed to providing a menu of options,” he said. “I don’t think there will be a one-size- fits all solution, but we’ll have several items to consider before the next Legislation Session.” The proposal to nix property taxes has already drawn critics. The Florida Policy Institute released its own study in February, stating that Florida would need to double its sales tax to 12% to make up for revenue shortfalls. “Our tax code is already the most upside-down in the nation,” said Sadaf Knight, the Institute’s CEO. “Eliminating property taxes and enacting a sales tax hike in its place would only exacerbate this issue, adding to inflation and benefiting those with the most to gain while making it even harder for Floridians with low income to make ends meet and put food on the table.”

Florida TaxWatch announced in May that it planned to conduct an independent study on the impact of cutting or eliminating property taxes on local governments. Kurt Wenner, Florida TaxWatch’s Senior Vice President of Research, presented a study at the organization’s Spring meeting that showed the $55 billion raised in Florida through property taxes is “by far the biggest tax source” for the state.

Indiana: Assessed value grows 12% as property tax changes take effect

Gross assessed values for commercial, industrial and residential properties throughout Indiana collectively rose 12% from 2024 to 2025, according to a statewide comparison chart assembled by the Department of Local Government Finance for property taxes due and payable in 2026. In comparison, gross assessed value grew 13.2% in 2022-23 and 8.9%. The data is sourced from ratio studies performed annually by state’s 92 county assessors.

“It is essentially a test of each assessor: how well are you doing? Are you doing this right?” said Larry DeBoer, a retired Purdue University agricultural economics professor and tax expert. “Not very many elected officials actually face a test like that. They’re being held accountable.” Agricultural land, meanwhile, will be assessed at a lower base rate than the previous year, thanks to a provision in the behemoth tax plan Indiana lawmakers approved in April. That’ll likely shift property tax burden toward other property types, DeBoer noted.

Commercial assessed value grew 16.07% in total, according to the study, ahead of industrial assessed value, which increased 15.59%. Values for Hoosier houses collectively rose by less: 10.42%. Lawmakers have, for years, promised cash-strapped homeowners that high assessed values and resulting skyrocketing property tax bills would naturally come down. “I think we’re seeing some evidence” that values are growing more slowly, DeBoer said. Relief could be on the horizon at last. Gross assessed values don’t translate perfectly to property tax bills, however. County auditors will apply all deductions and credits to certify net assessed values, according to DLGF spokeswoman Jenny Banks.

DeBoer also observed a bigger variety in residential value growth than in recent years. “Covid was a nationwide trend that affected every place – so maybe we’re not seeing a big nationwide or even statewide trend affecting home values now,” he posited. “We’re back to assessed value is a local issue,” DeBoer added. “And a local economy, and the local assessing practice, is what seems to be influencing the changes.”

Indiana’s farmland is assessed differently.

DLGF calculates a rolling average using six years of capitalized net operating income and net cash rent. The highest value of the six is dropped from the formula, and the remaining five years are averaged to determine a base rate. Another increase was in the cards for the base rate, to $2,390 per acre. That would’ve come after several straight years of big jumps: from $1,500 in assessment year 2022 to $1,900 in 2023 and $2,280 in 2024. Lawmakers intervened via Senate Enrolled Act 1, increasing the capitalization rate in the formula’s denominator to lower the base rate. Now, it’ll be $2,120 per acre, according to a DLGF memo. “Yep, that was a victory for the (Indiana) Farm Bureau,” DeBoer quipped.

The formula averages six years to “iron out the blips,” he said, but it also can create a delay where assessed values may keep rising even as farm incomes and commodity prices are falling. The last high pandemic-era value, for example, won’t drop out of the formula until the end of the decade. The average price of top-quality farmland was $14,392 per acre in 2024, according to a Purdue University Farmland Values survey. Average- and poor-quality farmland prices averaged $11,630 and $9,071, respectively.

 

New Jesey: N.J. just raised the ‘mansion tax’ on high-value property sales. Here’s what to know.

Sellers will have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in higher fees on residential and commercial property sales exceeding $2 million under a new law enacted by Gov. Murphy. Looking to sell your home? If it’s in New Jersey and sells for more than $2 million, you can expect to pay tens of thousands of dollars in new fees under legislation signed into law by Gov. Phil Murphy on June 30. The same goes for commercial property sales. The tax hike was approved by the Democratic- controlled Legislature to generate new revenue in support of the $58.8 billion state budget enacted for the fiscal year that began July 1.

Some supporters cheered the move as a progressive way to fund state programs. Yet it disappointed constituencies across the political spectrum, with advocacy group Fair Share Housing Center lamenting the revenue won’t be dedicated to affordable housing and business interests warning the tax will hurt an already struggling commercial real estate market. Here’s what to know about the changes to the fee commonly referred to as New Jersey’s “mansion tax.”

Under current law, sellers pay a Realty Transfer Fee that varies based on the sale price and sometimes the property’s assessed value, according to the New Jersey Division of Taxation. The state imposes an additional 1% fee on a property’s sale price for transactions that exceed $1 million – an expense paid by the buyer. The tax was established in 2004 and was initially limited to residential sales, according to law firm Riker Danzig LLP. In his February budget proposal, Murphy, a Democrat whose term ends in January, recommended doubling that rate to 2% for purchases between $1 million and $2 million and raising it to 3% for those over $2 million. Legislators modified that proposal, limiting the tax hike to transactions above $2 million and changing the law so that sellers, instead of buyers, pay the fee.

Lawmakers established a sliding scale, starting with a 2% fee on sales exceeding $2 million but less than $2.5 million – which means more than $40,000 in fees. The rate increases up to 3.5% for sales of more than $3.5 million. Sen. Paul Sarlo, a Democrat and chair of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, said during a June 26 hearing that the fees are expected to raise $282 million this fiscal year.

When does the law take effect? The new fees will apply to property sales starting July 10.

Why is New Jersey doing this? Murphy has said the fee increase and other tax hikes on sports betting and cigarette sales were needed to close the gap between the amount of money the state collects in taxes and the amount it spends. Even with the new taxes, though, that structural deficit is projected at $1.5 billion for the next year. “These changes, along with the cuts in appropriations, help ensure that revenues are more closely in line with expenditures,” Murphy’s office said after the governor signed the budget into law. Peter Chen, senior policy analyst with liberal-leaning New Jersey Policy Perspective, said the fee increase was needed at “a time when so many households are struggling to afford the cost of living.” Republicans say lawmakers should focus on cutting spending, rather than raising taxes, to close the deficit.

How many property sales will be affected?

New Jersey Realtors, a real estate industry group, opposed Murphy’s proposal and pointed to data showing that 16% of single-family homes sold in the state last year cost more than $1 million, up almost threefold from 2018. But the impact will be more limited because of the Legislature’s revisions. Chen, the policy analyst, said the changes would affect only the top 3% of property sales – both residential and commercial – in New Jersey. The median sale price for single-family homes sold in the 12 months ended in May was $573,000, according to data compiled by New Jersey Realtors.

What’s going on with commercial real estate in N.J.?

Business groups argued the tax will further depress a commercial real estate market that has been upended by an uptick in remote work since the pandemic. The amount of square footage leased in the first three months of the year in North and Central Jersey declined 26% from the previous quarter, according to an office market analysis by commercial real estate services firm CBRE. “This is further chilling our commercial real estate market, which is already chilled,” said Chris Emigholz, a lobbyist for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association.

 

EUROPE

Greece: Property values to stay put until 2028

The government will postpone updating property tax assessments until 2028, seven years after the last adjustment, as the government grapples with an acute housing crisis that officials say leaves no room for interventions. The Ministry of National Economy and Finance is examining changes to rental income tax brackets instead, sources confirmed. The housing problem prevents any new adjustment of objective property values, they emphasized, noting that increasing assessments would automatically drive up home sale prices and rents while further burdening property owners. Tax burdens would be significant even for those covered by tax-free thresholds, as new valuations would inflate costs including notarial fees, land registry transfer fees, and real estate agent commissions for property buyers or those transferring homes to children and grandchildren. Higher objective values would also impact the ENFIA property tax and trigger increases in other real estate taxes. To avoid this scenario, the government will maintain current zone prices despite large discrepancies between objective values and actual sale prices. The goal is for prices to decline and to increase housing supply through incentives to open closed apartments. Forty inter-ministerial actions totaling 6.5 billion euros have been implemented in recent years without limiting housing prices.

Objective values established in 2021 have already been exceeded. Transfer Value Registry data show increases above 30-40% between commercial and zone prices. Large differences appear in central Athens, the southern and northern suburbs, and island areas. In most regions, property sales occur at prices much higher than objective values, though contracts list amounts at objective value levels to limit taxes. In Vyronas, new apartments up to five years old sell for 2,900 euros per square meter when the maximum zone price reaches 1,850 euros. In Agia Paraskevi, new apartments sell for 4,250 euros per square meter versus a maximum zone price of 2,050 euros – 107% higher. Recent examples include a 246-square-meter Glyfada apartment purchased for 1.6 million euros when the objective value was 4,250 euros per square meter – 50% above assessment.

Beyond assessments, the economic staff is examining housing crisis measures. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis will announce provisions in September including changing rental income tax brackets. The government intends to reduce rates by 10-15%. A second scenario maintains existing rates while adding brackets: 15% for incomes up to 12,000 euros, 25% from 12,001-25,000 euros, 35% from 25,001-35,000 euros, and 45% above 35,001 euros.

UK: Business rates reform: A missed opportunity without bold action

A review of the key measures the government has under consideration

Back in 2021, the Labour Party, while in opposition, pledged to scrap business rates altogether, branding its proposals “the biggest overhaul of business taxation in a generation”. Their argument was simple: the current property tax system punishes entrepreneurs and stifles investment. But scrapping a tax set to raise £27.8 billion in England this financial year, and one that underpins local government finance – helping to fund vital local services – was never realistic. A great headline but not a policy plan. Now in government, the tone has unsurprisingly shifted. The rhetoric is more measured. Over the course of this Parliament, ministers have committed to a business rates system that is fairer, protects the high street, supports investment, and is fit for the 21st century. But behind that promise lies a £1.5 billion tax increase, or a 5.7% rise in business rates liabilities this year alone.

At the Autumn Statement, the government published a discussion paper outlining priority areas for reform. An interim report is due this summer. One of the central aims is to unlock investment – but how? In her first speech as Chancellor on 8 July 2024, Rachel Reeves outlined a new economic approach built on “stability, investment and reform”. It’s no surprise, then, that the government is scrutinising the effectiveness of Improvement Relief – a measure designed to ease the rates burden on businesses investing in their properties. Introduced in April 2024 by the previous government, the relief offers 12 months’ exemption from increased liabilities following qualifying improvements. However, it’s riddled with caveats.

As a rule, property improvements that increase the rateable value, lead to an increased level of tax. This relief was intended to offset that disincentive – but with local authorities estimating just £5 million in awarded relief this year, its impact is negligible. It’s not working to a meaningful extent – and it certainly won’t deliver on the government’s core objective of stimulating growth through investment. Let’s take energy performance. Current EPC regulations – applicable to around 85% of non-domestic rented real estate – require properties to have a minimum EPC rating of “E” before being let, with even tighter standards on the horizon. The scale of investment needed to upgrade our existing commercial real estate base is enormous.

Yet the current structure of Improvement Relief actively undermines investment. When substantial improvements are made and buildings are temporarily removed from the rating list for alterations and improvements, they are disqualified from the relief. That’s perverse. Whether or not a building is removed during works should be irrelevant. There’s also an illogical exclusion of landlord-funded improvements, despite landlords owning over half the UK’s commercial real estate. It should not matter who foots the bill – the purpose of the relief is to drive investment into our built environment. If landlords are left out, so is over 50% of the market. The current criteria for improvement relief is extremely limited in scope and often places a significant administrative burden on ratepayers. In its present form, this relief is just one element within a broader toolkit of measures available to ratepayers – including but not limited to deletion from the rating list, reconfiguration of the assessment and temporary part occupation relief.

Given the complexity and interplay of these various mechanisms, it is essential that ratepayers seek professional advice. A comprehensive understanding of the full tax base and the strategic use of all options available at the disposal of ratepayers will ensure the most beneficial course of action is taken. The 12-month relief window is also wholly insufficient. It doesn’t reflect the real commercial cycle of property investment. A meaningful incentive would provide 2–5 years of relief, depending on the level and nature of the capital expenditure. Without bold adjustments, Improvement Relief will remain a token gesture, not a catalyst for economic growth.

If the government is serious about boosting investment, it must also modernise Empty Property Relief – starting with extending exemption periods and reassessing the punitive framework introduced back in 2008. Under the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007, vacant commercial properties became liable for 100% of the business rates after an initial 3-month exemption (6 months for industrial properties). These rules, in place for over 15 years, have been roundly criticised as a “tax on failure” and a “tax on inactivity.” The reality? Empty properties don’t generate income and yet still incur security, insurance, and maintenance costs – plus full rates liability. It’s an inequitable tax on assets with no current productive use.

Today, UK office vacancy exceeds 100 million square feet. Structural changes from e-commerce, shifting work patterns, and high operational costs have left properties across all sectors empty and in need of reinvention. The current relief regime does little to support that transformation. Re-letting properties takes time, especially in a market grappling with obsolescence, changing occupational needs, and economic uncertainty. Extending the rate-free period would better reflect reality and stimulate reinvestment in vacant stock. Mitigating unoccupied rates can involve significant legal, commercial, and reputational complexity. A range of strategic options exists beyond simply appealing the rateable value of empty properties – each carrying its own set of risks, opportunities and requires careful expert advice ahead of being deployed.

For landlords and investors, the message is clear: well-structured business rates mitigation remains lawful. But success depends on a thorough understanding of the legal boundaries and careful implementation to avoid crossing the line and coming into direct conflict with billing authorities. Business Rates reform has been promised before – and often delayed. If the government is to make good on its commitment to a fairer, investment-friendly system, the solutions are already in front of them.

• Make improvement relief inclusive, longer-term, and decoupled from administrative quirks like removal from the rating list.
• Extend Empty Property Relief to reflect modern vacancy realities, remove distortions, and support genuine reinvestment.
• Above all, align business rates policy with broader economic goals – growth, productivity, and decarbonisation.

 

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