IPTI | Property Tax in the News – November 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

The Commercial Property Tax Rebellion

The property tax system in the United States, which traces its roots to colonial America, has long been the life blood of local government finance. Used to fund schools, infrastructure and vital municipal services, it is also a system fraught with controversy and mounting calls for reform.

Over the past decade, as assessments rose and local governments grappled with budgetary needs, a perfect storm has slowly but steadily been brewing. Rising home values, stagnant wages and shifting demographics have combined to disproportionately increase property tax bills for many families and small businesses. In many large metropolitan areas, annual increases have outpaced inflation.

For commercial property owners, whose collective burden grows as communities cap valuations or otherwise shield segments of the residential tax base, many assessments still reflect bygone notions of revenue potential from properties that now struggle with obsolescence. As a result, the property tax burden on commercial and residential property owners alike continues to grow.

Advocacy groups often decry examples of individuals forced to sell their homes due to unaffordable taxes and are calling for meaningful property tax reform.

Taxation is a delicate balancing act, however. Each state is tasked with determining whether or not it can realistically fund schools, police and other essential services if it significantly reduces or eliminates property taxes. After all, property taxes typically account for more than 70 percent of local government tax revenue nationwide, according to the Tax Foundation.

Yet, unlike income or sales tax, property taxes do not always reflect the owner’s ability to pay, which becomes especially problematic in booming housing markets with high tax rates.

In retrospect, 2024 marked a very significant year for property tax reform. In 2024, various states responded to mounting concerns with ballot measures, legislative overhauls and, in some cases, proposals to outright repeal tax structure.

The 2024 election cycle featured an unusually high number of property tax ballot measures, and some states are already undergoing reform efforts. Voters in at least seven states weighed in on changes to their property tax systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Proposed changes ranged from relatively small, targeted reforms to outright repeal, achieving varying degrees of success.

Seven states proposed legislation last year to reduce or limit property tax burdens. Lawmakers in Wyoming, which experienced a significant influx of residents during the pandemic and a surge in purchases of rental, vacation and second homes, proposed a distinction between owner-occupied housing versus rental or non-primary residences.

Virginia and New Mexico extended property tax protections for veterans, while Georgia followed in the footsteps of many other states by proposing a homestead exemption for owners’ primary residences. Florida, likely responding to charges that property taxes ignore the owner’s ability to pay, proposed allowing an adjustment to the homestead exemption according to annual inflation.

Arizona voters approved a system tying property taxes to local efforts to mitigate homelessness. In municipalities not enforcing laws against illegal camping, loitering, panhandling, public urination, public consumption of alcohol and possession of illegal substances, property owners can apply for property tax refunds.

Colorado proposed and later withdrew an initiative for a 4 percent cap on tax revenue increases that would have required voter approval to exceed the cap. The state now caps property tax increases by local governments at 5.5 percent per year. There was also a strong push to significantly lower the assessment rates on commercial and residential property. This ended in a legislative compromise that lowered the rate, but not as low as initially proposed.

Unlike the specific, targeted changes attempted by the states above, North Dakota in 2024 put forth Measure 4, a bill that proposed the complete repeal of property taxes. Opponents of the measure warned that such a move would cripple local governments, with some experts projecting a $1.3 billion loss in revenue. North Dakotans rejected the bill, leading to renewed legislative efforts to severely hobble the property tax system in 2025.

The push for property tax relief has intensified in 2025, with more states going beyond targeted exemptions and seeking to repeal property taxes outright.

Florida is making a push to abolish property taxes despite the absence of a state income tax, which makes it more reliant on property taxes than many other states. Florida would most likely have to offset the lost revenue by increasing the 6 percent sales tax, potentially doubling it to 12 percent.

In Pennsylvania, there is a push to place a state constitutional amendment on this November’s ballot that would outlaw all property taxes there by July 1, 2030. The state would need an increase in sales tax and income tax to cover the shortfall.

After North Dakota’s failed attempt to achieve tax relief at the ballot box in 2024, proponents now seek to create new tax credits and to cap tax increases at 3 percent year over year, covering the shortfall with the state’s oil-rich Legacy Fund.

The focus in Texas is on expanding exemptions rather than fully dismantling property taxes. Proposed changes during the special legislative session include exemptions for the elderly and/or disabled and expanding homestead protections up to $140,000, as well as new exemptions related to business assets, animal feed, improvements to fire-damaged homesteads and border infrastructure value. Texas is also putting forth a law that would require an election to be held if a taxing entity were to raise its tax rate by 2.5 percent or more year over year, a more stringent cap than the current 3.5 percent cap.

From North Dakota’s repeated repeal attempts to Pennsylvania’s proposed constitutional amendment, and from Florida’s investigation of repeal feasibility to Texas’s additional legislative sessions to address property taxes, it seems clear that there is a present and growing movement to alter or dismantle the property tax systems as we see them across the country.

While it seems the calls for reform and repeal have grown stronger, voters may still need convincing before they put these measures to the test.

Texas: In bid for another term, Gov. Abbott unveils plan to lower property taxes

Gov. Greg Abbott announced his re-election campaign for a fourth term as governor over the weekend. Gov. Greg Abbott is betting that his plan to lower property taxes could help him become the longest-serving governor in the state. Abbott kicked off his third re-election campaign for governor over the weekend, where he announced his new plan for lowering property taxes. Property taxes primarily affect local budgets, school districts, public safety, and more.

So how does he plan to provide property tax relief and still leave enough money in the local coffers for those services? Gromer Jeffers has been digging into the story for the Dallas Morning News and joined Texas Standard to discuss. Read the transcript below.

Texas Standard: Well, Abbott just released a six-point plan. What are some of his big ideas?

Gromer Jeffers: Well, it’s really aggressive and most of the items are aimed at reining in the ability of local jurisdictions to raise property taxes the way they want to.

And so the big one is giving voters the ability to actually abolish property taxes from school districts. That would have to come via constitutional amendment, which means the Legislature would have to put it on a statewide ballot, and a vote of the people would have to occur. But as you know, that would be devastating, some public school advocates and school district folks say, because they would have to figure out where to make up that funding.

He also is advocating tight caps on appraisals and the ability of voters to actually have a referendum to abolish or lower property tax rates. So it’s a pretty aggressive plan that he has.

This plan to eliminate school property taxes, how does that fit into his sort of wider stance on changing up the way that schools are funded and what we mean by a public school with the implementation of education savings accounts and that sort of thing?

That’s a great point. I think the governor has this grand vision, although he hasn’t shared all of it. But if you look at what he’s been pushing for since he’s been governor, especially in the past four to six years, it’s been reimagining public education.

And you mentioned the voucher plan, which has these education savings accounts that allow students to use public dollars to attend private schools. He’s been really tough on funding in terms of giving public school districts and public school advocates what they want in terms of funding.

And so he wants to reimagine public education. And I think part of that is re-imagining how it’s funded and taking away the reliance on property taxes – which he points out the school funding is the largest portion of a Texas resident’s property tax.

Well, Texans just approved a lot of property tax relief as part of the constitutional amendments that were on the last ballot. And it’s true that those go on top of what the Texas Legislature did this past session. Is that right?

Yeah, so if you look at it, $51 billion over the next two years… And remember in 2023, there was $18 billion in tax relief provided, which at the time they touted as a historic move.

Abbott and Republicans complain, however, that if you have a home and your appraisals shoot up, that relief doesn’t mean much because you have to pay more in taxes. Or again, the ability of local jurisdictions to raise taxes or that sort of thing, which would wipe out any relief you get because maybe of a homestead exemption increase or something like that.

And so you see the fight brewing. Will local authorities from here on out be able to manage and determine what kind of tax rates they set? Or will Abbott and some Republicans in the Legislature who favor this be able to set these parameters on how local jurisdictions can raise their taxes?

I was going to ask about that because we’ve touched a little bit on the school district’s concerns.

But local entities, as well, rely on these property taxes.

Have we heard from local governments about feeling [hamstrung] in their ability to provide public safety or infrastructure services or not yet?

If you ask a local official about what they want out of the Legislature, the answer is almost invariably just to “leave us alone.” And they’ve always feared that this day was coming when the Texas Legislature and the governor would try to impact the amount of revenue they could collect, because when you look at basic services – trash collection, street repairs, sewers, public safety – that’s done on a local level. And it costs money.

And if your ability to raise tax revenue is mitigated by laws that the state now implements, or if you have to worry about 15% of registered voters, as Abbott’s plan outlines, could actually have a referendum to lower or roll back property taxes, then that’s a problem, and that’s something that you would have to worry about and navigate not just one year, but it would be pressure on you all the time because voters would be able to do that.

Illinois: Lawsuits over property tax theft

Lawsuits are mounting from homeowners, investors and counties. Unless lawmakers act, taxpayers could pay millions in damages over Illinois’ unconstitutional tax sale system. County governments, homeowners and investors in Illinois are bracing for a fight over the state’s failure to reform its unconstitutional property tax sale system.

More than two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tyler v. Hennepin County that governments cannot keep more than what’s owed in back property taxes, Illinois remains the only state that hasn’t changed its laws to comply. Now, lawsuits are piling up, and could cost taxpayers millions.

In Cook County, Treasurer Maria Pappas faces three federal lawsuits, including a class-action case involving more than 1,700 homeowners. Some of the tax buyers who would purchase these homes have even decided to sue the country treasurer because of the now “worthless” value of purchased tax certificates.

Eight other counties are also defending against a lawsuit brought by suburban homeowners claiming millions in lost equity. Several of those counties are turning around to sue the state of Illinois, arguing lawmakers’ inaction left them exposed to legal liability.

Under Illinois’ current system, counties sell unpaid property tax bills to private investors. If homeowners can’t repay the debt plus interest, the investor can take the deed to the home and keep the entire value of the property, not just the amount owed.

Illinois lawmakers have failed to reach an agreement on how to fix this system since the Supreme Court ruling. Instead, they passed a bill allowing for the delay of the tax sales that would have normally taken place in August. This delay didn’t shield counties from lawsuits already in motion.

The financial stakes are high. Researchers estimate investors in Illinois collected at least $148 million more than what was owed in unpaid property taxes between 2014 and 2021. If the courts order counties to compensate the homeowners, taxpayers could foot the bill for those damages.

That pressure is already prompting some county officials to call on the General Assembly to act quickly during the fall veto session. One proposal, Illinois House Bill 3146, would require that any surplus value from a property sale after taxes are paid go back to the original homeowner and would resolve the issue, aligning state law with the Fifth Amendment’s protections.

That adjustment may not be enough, however. Tyler v. Hennepin County continues to inspire new lawsuits in other states, such as one currently underway in Michigan. The Pacific Legal Foundation is urging the Supreme Court to require governments to return the fair market value of a property, minus any taxes owed, when a home is taken through tax foreclosure. Illinois lawmakers need to take action to avoid falling even further behind.

Delaware: Supreme Court upholds use of split property tax rates

Split property tax rates created in New Council County to address post-reassessment concerns will move forward after a decision by Delaware’s Supreme Court. Delaware’s highest court delivered its expedited decision Wednesday – affirming a Court of Chancery ruling last month that rejected all arguments made by a coalition of landlords and property associations.

Chief Justice Collins Seitz Jr., writing for the three-judge panel hearing the case, said they agreed with the lower court’s ruling that state lawmakers have the power to allow classification of property for rate-setting purposes once a uniform assessment methodology is in place.

The state Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that because implementation is not revenue neutral as required it is illegal. Seitz noted by basing revenue neutrality on estimates, lawmakers anticipated the possibility of changes based on events like the error corrections the county is working on.

New Castle County plans to send out property tax bills using the split rates Nov. 18 or 20. The State Senate already passed a bill extending the due date for payments to Dec. 31. The House takes up that bill Thursday.

New Castle County officials asked lawmakers to approve that extension to accommodate the Chancery Court order that it include a notice of any reclassification and a description of its new policy for disputing reclassifications in its bills.

And with the case settled, lawmakers’ Special Committee on reassessment will resume its work with 3 additional hearings starting Nov. 19th with updates from New Castle County.

CANADA

Alberta: Municipalities want province to rethink property tax

Alberta Municipalities want the provincial government to fund more infrastructure in its 2026 budget before municipalities must make “critical” changes due to a nosedive in support over the last 15 years.

″(Alberta’s) government is well aware of our ask for increased infrastructure funding, in particular, but it hasn’t translated into action in terms of a lift in that funding,” Dana Mackie, the CEO of ABmunis, told Taproot. “This isn’t just an ask for the sake of asking, there really is a demonstrated need, and there’s been a history of decision-making through several administrations now, at the provincial level, that has put municipalities into a point where they’re really starting to make some very difficult decisions … It is at a critical juncture.”

Rising property tax rates in Alberta are the result of reduced funding transfers from the province, as well as inflation, new municipal responsibilities, and a rising provincial property tax that municipalities must collect, ABmunis says in Property Taxes Reimagined: Fair Funding for Strong Communities, an information campaign that launched in early October. The organization notes that municipalities received an average of $635 per resident in 2009, and that number fell to $327 by 2023, after adjusting for inflation.

Municipalities also rely on funding transfers from the provincial and federal levels of government, like those allotted from the province via the Local Government Fiscal Framework, which replaced the Municipal Sustainability Initiative in 2023. The change from the initiative to the framework pleased Mackie at first, but hasn’t yet yielded the results ABmunis was hoping for.

“The overall amount was reduced through that process by hundreds of millions,” Mackie said. “We’ve had a significant gap of infrastructure funding, and as I think many Albertans understand, this is coming at a time when we’re having record amounts of people coming into our province from elsewhere in Canada, or even from outside of Canada. We really need to keep up with that growth, and at the same time, we have existing infrastructure that we need to maintain. It’s just not tenable right now with current funding levels.”

Municipalities derive most of their revenue from property taxes, with a smaller portion coming from user fees, the property tax campaign notes. Unlike the federal or provincial governments, municipalities are not allowed to create new taxes, approve a budget with a deficit, or borrow beyond their means. When municipalities don’t have enough money to break even, they raise property taxes or cut spending on infrastructure and services. Cuts might mean deferring maintenance on roads, buildings, and underground pipes, or even delaying and changing major projects, Mackie said.

Another thing municipalities want more money from, he said, is Family and Community Support Services, a preventative social services program that offers an 80-20 funding partnership between the province and municipalities or Métis settlements. “It’s very critical,” Mackie said.

“That program hasn’t seen an adjustment for inflation or population growth in well over 10 years. It’s at about $105 million today, and it really should be about $162 million.”

The province feels municipalities already receive substantial support, indicates a statement from the office of Dan Williams, the minister of municipal affairs. “Municipalities set their own property tax rates through their annual budgets, and they collect those revenues directly to fund local services and infrastructure,” Williams’s office said.

Premier Danielle Smith asked Williams to work towards keeping property taxes manageable in a mandate letter released on Sept. 22. Further, Williams noted that the province will invest $2.5 billion in municipalities via the Local Government Fiscal Framework over the next three years, and that Alberta’s government renegotiated the federal Canada Community-Building Fund to invest $276 million in infrastructure.

Mackie said ABmunis factored those investments into the property tax campaign, adding that the opening of the legislature this fall has provided some hope for the budget expected in February. “I did see some promising language in the Throne Speech around a focus on infrastructure funding,” he said. “The language and the focus is good, but I think what our members need to see is an actual lift when we get to Budget 2026.”

Another irritant for ABmunis is that municipalities have to collect the provincial education property tax, the size of which is beyond their control. For example, Edmonton’s city council approved a rate increase of 5.7% in 2025. But the city also had to collect the education property tax, making tax bills even higher. On average in Alberta, 13.5% of household spending is on federal income taxes, 6.5% is on provincial income taxes, 0.4% is on provincial property taxes, and 1.4% is on municipal property taxes, ABmunis says.

Those provincial property taxes are on the rise as well, growing from $2.7 billion for 2024-2025 to $3.1 billion for 2025-2026, amid ongoing pressures to increase the education budget.

At the ABmunis convention in Calgary this week, the Town of Rocky Mountain House has moved a resolution asking ABmunis to advocate for removing the provincial property tax from the municipal tax bill. ABmunis commented on the resolution that it aligns with its “ongoing advocacy to improve municipal government finances and transparency in education the public about what services and taxes are a municipal responsibility.”

Looking beyond the province, Mackie also pointed to promises by the federal government to fund infrastructure in its latest budget. Among them are the Build Communities Strong Fund for $51 billion over 10 years, rolling out in the 2026-2027 spending cycle. (The provincial-territorial stream of the fund makes up $17.2 billion of the $51 billion.)

While the Provincial Priorities Act, passed by the United Conservative Party government in 2024, mandates that municipalities seek permission from the province to receive large amounts from the federal government, Mackie said he hopes Alberta’s municipalities will be able to capitalize on the new Liberal budget.

“We’d like to work closely with the province to make sure that our communities are getting our fair share of that federal funding going forward,” he said. “That is an increase of funding we’re looking forward to.”

Mayor Andrew Knack, who has served on the ABmunis board, has said the City of Edmonton must fund what other levels of government will not, regardless of whose jurisdiction it is. The mayor followed through on this with a successful Nov. 3 motion to spend $1 million to expand day shelter capacity.

“That isn’t something the city has typically taken the lead on, and yet, this council just unanimously said we want to be involved in this,” Knack said on the Speaking Municipally podcast. “I will continue to take a leadership role while I continue to try to find those collaborative opportunities. I’m not giving up on the provincial government.”

EUROPE

France: MPs vote to replace France’s property wealth tax with ‘unproductive wealth’ levy

French MPs voted in favour of replacing France’s property wealth tax with a broader tax on ‘unproductive wealth’ during 2026 budget discussions on Friday (October 31). The change is not final: it must still pass scrutiny during the remainder of the parliamentary process for the budget and could also be rejected by the Senate. Below we look at what is included in this new tax proposal for eligible households.

MPs voted to transform the impôt sur la fortune immobilière (IFI) into an impôt sur la fortune improductive – a shift that would expand the scope of the tax from solely real estate to a wider range of luxury and so-called ‘non-productive assets’.

The amendment, proposed by centrist MP Jean-Paul Mattei (MoDem), passed narrowly by 163 votes to 150, supported by an unusual alliance of Socialists, far-right Rassemblement National (RN) and centrist MoDem and Liot MPs. The government and its Renaissance allies opposed the measure, calling it uncertain in scope and revenue.

If approved, the reform would mark a profound change in France’s approach to taxing personal wealth. Wealth tax would no longer apply just to property, but also to other so-called “unproductive” assets such as jewellery, art, luxury vehicles, yachts, aircraft, precious metals, digital currencies and some forms of assurances vie policies that are not tied to productive investment. Policies invested in unités de compte – that is, portfolios linked to shares or other market assets – would remain exempt, as they are considered to support economic activity.

The new tax would be charged annually at a single rate of 1%, replacing the current progressive IFI scale of 0.5% to 1.5%. One property per household, up to €1million in value, could be excluded from the assessment. The threshold for liability would remain at €1.3million of net assets as for the IFI currently. Within that the tax would be applied from the first euro of taxable wealth after eligible deductions and the allowance of up to €1 million for the main home.

At present, the IFI is applied to households whose total taxable property wealth exceeds €1.3million of net property assets. There is a 30% exemption for a main home. The progressive tax levies can apply from €800,000 of those assets (with a partial reduction available for households who are just in the first bracket).

Supporters argue that the change would encourage investment in businesses and innovation, rather than luxury or speculative holdings. Critics warn it could raise costs for savers and collectors, complicate asset valuations and reopen the political divisions that surrounded the former impôt de solidarité sur la fortune (ISF), abolished in 2017.

The vote came days after the rejection of another wealth tax proposal, the so-called ‘Zucman tax’, named after economist Gabriel Zucman. His plan would impose a minimum 2% annual levy on fortunes of €100million or more to ensure the ultra-rich pay at least as much, proportionally, as other taxpayers.

Socialist MP Philippe Brun described the amendment as “a re-establishment of the wealth tax” in a form more palatable to centrist MPs. By contrast, left-wing La France Insoumise said the measure “weakens” the IFI by excluding the main residence up to a value of €1 million.

Within the governing coalition, Horizons MP Sylvain Berrios denounced the vote as “a tax on savings”, while Public Accounts Minister Amélie de Montchalin said there was “no certainty about what it will bring in”.

MoDem’s Marc Fesneau defended the reform as “neither the ISF nor the RN’s wealth tax”, but a balanced approach rewarding productive capital.

 

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