The EACC, in partnership with the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI), wants to keep its members up to date with the latest developments in property taxes in the USA and Europe. IPTI has put together a selection of brief reports from articles contained in IPTI Xtracts which can be found on its website (www.ipti.org).
New York: Understanding NY’s Property Taxes
Whether people like it or not, taxes are necessary, and it is particularly true in the case of property tax. Local governments levy a tax on property to generate additional revenue. This is used as funding for public schools, the local police and fire departments, garbage collection and disposal services, as well as maintaining our streets.
Unfortunately for those with properties in New York, The Balance reveals that the state’s property tax is quite high. It is, in fact, one of the highest in the country, and is computed like this: the property’s assessed value multiplied by the local property tax rate. The tax rates are set by local governments, and they vary from location to location. Local assessors, meanwhile, are tasked to assess every property in-state (except in New York City and Nassau County) at a uniform percentage of market value — determined by the local assessor’s office — annually.
This means that your property tax this year will likely be different from that of next year, and the year after, and so on. The reason for this is that the uniform percentage of market value will likely vary from year to year. Even the tax rate might change from year to year as well, like what happened in 2017 in Mount Vernon. As reported here, Mount Vernon City Council adopted that year the city’s lowest budget. Yet they increased the property tax rate to 1.82% for that same fiscal year.
Still it should be noted that there are certain tax reliefs that can lower your property tax in New York. Those who use their homes as their primary residence, for instance, are entitled to an exemption. Senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities (PWDs) also get exemptions. Owners of residential buildings, meanwhile, can gain tax abatements to ease the burden of high property taxes.
The J-51 tax abatements are a prime example of this. The J-51 tax abatements article by Yoreevo states they were first made available way back in 1955, right after the city required all buildings to provide basic utilities such as central heating, indoor plumbing, and hot water. Response to the mandate was lukewarm, with landlords complaining that they didn’t have the money to add said utilities to their buildings. The J-51 tax abatements were born, with a simple premise: invest in improvements, and recoup the costs via tax breaks. Today, the J-51 tax abatements are incentivizing building improvements, and both landlords and tenants are benefiting — the former get lower property taxes, while the latter enjoy better amenities.
These tax breaks, clearly, are important nowadays for property owners in New York, especially in New York City. As stated already, New York has some of the highest property taxes in the U.S., and property taxes in the Big City are still rising “at an alarming rate”. The rise is particularly alarming when juxtaposed with the income of New Yorkers. Over the past decade, New York City’s property tax rate “has grown at triple the rate of New Yorkers’ incomes.” This means that property taxes are getting an increasingly larger portion of a homeowners’ income.
It’s quite unfortunate that property taxes in New York are so high, and it seems they are continuing to rise. At the very least, there are tax breaks, and the onus now is on property owners to take advantage of them.
California: Proposition 13 is no longer off-limits in California
Proposition 13 is untouchable. That’s been the thinking for 40 years in California. Politicians have feared for their careers if they dared suggest changes to the measure that capped property taxes, took a scythe to government spending and spawned anti-tax initiatives across the country.
However, that is beginning to change. With Republican influence in California on the wane and ascendant Democrats making tax fairness an issue, advocates are confident that the time is right to take a run at some legacies of the 1978 measure. High on their list: making businesses pay more and ending a sweetheart deal for people who inherit homes and their low tax bills, then turn a profit by renting them out.
Legislative Democrats hold so many seats that they don’t have to worry about the GOP blocking such ideas from going before voters. Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom has said that “everything would be on the table,” including Prop. 13, as he formulates a plan to reform the state’s tax structure.
Perhaps most important, Prop. 13’s age is becoming an advantage to would-be reformers:
California’s voting demography is changing. The generation of homeowners that grew up with Prop.13 is well into retirement now, and some younger Californians blame flaws in the measure for everything from the underfunding of public schools to growing wealth inequality.
“For Californians who grew up in the public education system that came after Prop. 13, their education was robbed from them. They didn’t get the same education their parents did,” said Catherine Bracy, executive director of TechEquity Collaborative, which is trying to rally the tech community to support changes to the state’s tax structure.
Bracy, 38, moved to the state six years ago from Chicago. “For newcomers (to California) like me, who were born after Prop. 13, we want to experience the California dream, too,” she said. “But we don’t have the opportunity to, because all the goodies have been locked up by the older generations.”
Prop. 13 was a remedy for a side-effect of one of California’s first housing bubbles — spiking property taxes. Moved by their own tax bills and horror stories of longtime homeowners being forced to sell because of skyrocketing assessments, voters overwhelmingly passed the measure. It rolled back assessments for homes and businesses to 1976 levels and capped annual tax increases at 2 percent.
Jon Coupal is president of Prop. 13’s fiercest defender — the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, named after the initiative’s co-author. He agreed that “the number of homeowners who were around in 1978 is shrinking. And many younger people don’t remember the fear and anger about losing your home.”
But Coupal said that “notwithstanding the leftward movement of politics in California,” his organization’s internal polling shows support for Prop. 13 remains strong. And a survey in March by a nonpartisan group unaffiliated with Coupal’s organization, the Public Policy Institute of California, found that 65 percent of likely voters surveyed said Prop. 13 “turned out to be mostly a good thing for the state.”
Under Prop. 13, residential and commercial property alike is reassessed only when it is sold. But while homes often change hands every few years, many large businesses remain in the same ownership for a long time. Some businesses are paying property taxes based on assessments that haven’t changed in 40 years.
That’s one main target of people who want to tweak Prop. 13. The League of Women Voters of California says it has gathered enough signatures for a 2020 ballot measure that would create a so- called split roll system, under which businesses’ property would be reassessed every three years. Agricultural land and businesses with 50 or fewer employees would be exempt. Residential property would not be affected.
The change could raise $11 billion in tax revenue statewide, including $2.4 billion for Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties, according to a January study by the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity. The study found that 56 percent of all Bay Area commercial properties had not been reassessed for 20 years, and 22 percent had assessments dating back to the 1970s.
Could a split-roll measure pass? It might be close. Forty-six percent of likely voters surveyed by the Public Policy Institute of California in January said they supported the idea, while 43 percent were against it. Support was far higher among likely voters under 35 (57 percent) than with those over 55 (41 percent).
However, the split-roll concept has actually been growing less popular over the years, the institute said: Six years ago, 60 percent of likely voters backed it. Helen Hutchison, president of the League of Women Voters of California, acknowledged that changing the law will be difficult because “Prop. 13 still has some kind of magical pull. But we think the time is right to do this.”
State Sen. Jerry Hill has introduced a ballot initiative that would limit a tax break for heirs of Hill’s proposal, Senate Constitutional Amendment 3, takes aim at Proposition 58, which voters approved in 1986. The measure allowed parents to give their residential property to their heirs without triggering a tax reassessment. The intent of the measure was to insulate children from absorbing a huge spike in property taxes and help them stay in the family home. California is the only state to offer this tax break.
Hill proposed the change after learning that many heirs are using their inherited properties as second homes or renting them out for many times more than what they’re paying in Prop. 13- controlled property taxes.
The proposed ballot measure would require people who inherit property in this way to move into the home within a year if they wanted the property tax break. The change would apply to future heirs, not those who have already inherited homes. Getting this measure on the ballot in 2020 requires Hill to corral a two-thirds majority from both houses of the Legislature. If it makes it to the ballot, it could be passed by a simple majority of voters.
Hill is mindful of the politics around property taxes. “We’re not touching Prop. 13. We’re touching Prop. 58,” Hill said. “The goal is to get people to pay their fair share.” Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, doesn’t think Hill’s measure is the biggest threat to Californians concerned about taxes.
Wisconsin: Closing the Dark Store Loophole?
Referendum results deliver resounding ‘yes’ for eliminating tax wrinkle that benefits big-box stores
For a seemingly abstruse issue, the so-called dark-store loophole in state law received a resounding rejection when it was put on the ballot this past November. In referenda held in 23 counties, cities, villages and towns throughout the state, the dark-store loophole was voted down by a majority of the people who showed up to polling places on Tuesday, Nov. 6. On average, 78.65% voters answered “yes” to ballot questions asking if the loophole should be closed. The rejection vote was far bigger in individual places. In Dane County, for instance, 91.79% of voters called for ending the loophole, as did 89.59% in the nearby village of DeForest, 89.5% in Sun Prairie and 87.88% in Glendale.
Since the referenda were all non-binding, they will result in no actual changes to state law, but legislators in Madison are already taking notice. So, then, what exactly is the “dark-store loophole”? To critics, it’s an unfortunate wrinkle in Wisconsin’s tax system that unfairly shifts taxes onto homeowners and non-retail businesses. Rather than via state law, the loophole originated in the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in the case of Walgreens v. City of Madison.
The case bore directly on how local assessors calculate the property values of retail stores for tax purposes. The Supreme Court found that local assessors should be calculating these values not merely by trying to learn what a particular building might be generating in lease income, or how much it cost to build; instead, they should be taking into account the sales prices of similar properties, even if those properties were vacant, or “dark,” at the time of the sale. Critics of the loophole argue that it has allowed big retailers to pay far less than their fair share of property taxes. Thriving stores see their tax bills reduced every time a nearby vacant building once used for retail is sold for a fraction of what its value had been when it was a going concern.
Loophole opponents say they aren’t out to pad local governments’ budgets. Since local officials are prohibited by state-imposed caps from raising property taxes beyond a certain amount every year, eliminating the dark-store loophole would not bring in additional money. Groups like the League of Wisconsin Municipalities instead claim they’re merely after fairness. The league has long noted that, when the dark-store loophole lets a retailer like Walgreens lower its tax bill by a certain amount, it’s not as if local governments’ need to collect money diminishes proportionally. Rather than forgo revenue, local officials meet their budgetary needs by turning to other types of taxpayers. Homeowners and smaller businesses find themselves having to pick up the slack.
The result is a shift in who pays for local government. The League of Municipalities estimates that homeowners in Wisconsin now shoulder 68% of the total property tax burden. Jerry Deschane, executive director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, said such facts should be persuasive in themselves. The recent referenda results merely underline the point for state lawmakers.
That’s not to say it will be easy getting something passed in the Wisconsin Legislature. In the state’s most recent legislative session, strong bipartisan support for bills meant to close the dark-store loophole was not enough. One piece of legislation had 84 legislative sponsors from both sides of the political aisle, yet it was never given a vote on the floor of the state Assembly or Senate.
One of the biggest defenders of the dark-store loophole has been the business lobbying outfit Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), which spent $407,800 to lobby the state legislature
in the first six months of 2017, the most of any such group. Cory Fish, director of tax policy at WMC, said the recent referenda results were far less damaging to WMC’s case than many might believe. For one, Fish said, it’s obvious the ballot questions were phrased in a leading way. In West Milwaukee, for instance, the question put to voters started with the words: “Should the state legislature protect residential property taxpayers by preventing commercial and manufacturing property owners from using tax loopholes that shift an ever-increasing tax burden to homeowners who already pay 68% of the statewide property tax levy…?”
“The referendum results were exactly what you would expect with such biased questions,” Fish said. He also quibbled with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities’ figures. Fish conceded that homeowners do pay about 2/3rds of all property taxes in Wisconsin but said the league fails to note that about 2.5% of the total burden has shifted to businesses in the past 10 years.
All this is not to say Fish and others at WMC don’t think the current system can be improved. On Tuesday, Dec. 11, a legislative study committee released draft proposals calling for a series of reforms that are at least close to something WMC could support, Fish said. Among other things, the legislation would require businesses to furnish more of the sort of information that assessors could use to assess a property according to its income and let municipalities share with counties and schools the cost of defending property assessments that are challenged.
Fish also questioned the League of Wisconsin Municipalities’ advertising tactics. He said the group sent out a letter to municipalities soliciting money that was eventually used to pay for a large online ad campaign. “All of it was taxpayer dollars,” Fish said. But even a heavyweight like WMC might not exercise enough influence to get its way on this issue. Members of both parties, including some of the most conservative Republicans, still favor closing the dark-store loophole, and Governor-elect Tony Evers has said he would sign legislation doing just that.
Brian Sikma—a spokesman for state Sen. Duey Stroebel, a Republican from Saukville—said this coming legislative session could very well be the time when the dark-store loophole is closed forever. Deschane said that he and others at the League of Wisconsin Municipalities similarly like their chances. “Although, with the legislature, you never want to say it’s a slam dunk,” he said. “There are still people putting a lot of energy into trying to say, ‘There’s nothing to see here,’ which defies all common sense.”
Minnesota: Minn. Rejects ‘Dark Store’ Theory In Lowe’s Property Row
The Minnesota Tax Court has said a Lowe’s store is entitled to a market value reduction, but the attorney for the county the store is located in lauded the decision as rejection of the “dark store” theory of property valuation. In a Thursday decision, the tax court reduced the market value of the Lowe’s Home Centers LLC store in Hennepin County from $11.8 million for 2015 to $10.5 million. The appraiser hired by Lowe’s had requested the property be valued at $5.3 million.
Similar to a Tuesday decision lowering a Menards store’s market value, the court said it relied mostly on the cost approach to value in its decision. The cost approach determines the current cost of constructing a property’s existing improvements, subtracting depreciation and then adding the land value to calculate a property’s market value.
The court said it gave the cost approach a 75 percent weight in determining the property’s value, while giving the sales approach a 25 percent weight. The sales approach compares sales of similar properties to determine value. The court said it gave the sales approach “very limited weight” because none of the presented comparables were similar to the store at issue in terms of retail location.
“Both experts agreed there are a very limited number of sales of single-user owner-occupied buildings that are similar to the subject property and no sales of these properties performing well in good locations,” the court said.
Dan Rogan, managing attorney of the Civil Division of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, said the office was pleased with the decision.
“It represents a rejection of the recently popular ‘dark store’ theory,” Rogan told Law360 in a phone interview Friday. “Dark store” theory, Rogan said, refers to the practice of so-called big-box retailers appealing valuations of their property for tax purposes by asserting their properties should be compared to sales of other big-box property lots, which he said often have “distressed” stores that are not truly comparable.
Big-box retailers have asserted the improvements to any given big-box property are tailored for the specific owner’s needs and therefore are of little value to any other potential buyers. Because of this, retailers have asserted the best way to value such properties is to look at sales of other big-box properties to determine what buyers are willing to pay.
Rogan said the court recognized that available sales for comparison are often of failed stores or stores that are otherwise inferior and that comparing the Lowe’s store at issue to such stores would not give an accurate value.
“In this case the tax court rejected this approach and outlined a more appropriate method to value these properties,” Rogan said. “The sales approach, where you compare it to a dark store, that’s really not appropriate.”
The court took three available recent sales of physically comparable big-box stores that both the Lowe’s appraiser and the county’s appraiser had offered, but said all of them were “significantly inferior to the subject property in several respects.” The court said two of the sales had deed restrictions, which are anti-competitive restrictions on what the property can be used for, which limited demand for the properties and therefore their values. Additionally, the court said all three sales were in “significantly inferior locations, by both trade area, household and income demographics and traffic access and exposure.”
In contrast, the court said the cost approach was well-supported in the case at hand. The court said in determining the land value it relied most on a comparable used by both appraisers, which required very minimal adjustments. For replacement cost estimates, the court said it adopted the Lowe’s appraiser’s estimates and found that based on the “quantity and quality of evidence in the record, we find that the cost approach is substantially reliable.”
Representatives for Lowe’s declined to comment. Robert Hill, an attorney for Menard Inc. in its Minnesota property tax disputes, told Law360 in a phone interview Friday the Lowe’s decision was evidence of collusion. “This is a set up. It’s a fix,” Hill said. “These guys are desperate to prop up market value.”
Rogan said the decision properly reflected the assessed value of the store and “protects the county’s tax base by ensuring big-box stores pay their fair share of taxes.” Otherwise, Rogan said, “it would impact homeowners and others that would be picking up those taxes unfairly.”
Greece: Extensive changes afoot in 2019 in the taxation of properties
Thousands of property owners in Greece face the prospect of higher taxes due to sweeping changes that are being introduced in 2019.
Starting on January 1 the cost of property transfers will go up, as the tax charges will be calculated according to the new rates used for tax purposes – known as objective values – that were drawn up earlier this year and go into effect in 2019. The same applies to all charges on properties that are based on the taxable rates. There is a 10 percent average reduction to the Single Property Tax (ENFIA) planned for 2019, but that is likely to be offset by a new adjustment of objective values in the summer.
The objective values that applied from the summer of 2018 to the ENFIA dues will now also apply to all other property charges as of January, including stamps and duties on sales, parental concessions, etc. Therefore, any property transactions in the 3,792 zones in Greece where objective values are going up in 2019, will also be charged higher transaction rates.
Chartered surveyors will start drafting fresh objective values after the holidays, which will concern 10,000 zones across the country and apply to the 2019 ENFIA and the 2020 property levies; the changes may well affect not only the zone rates but also the commercial rates of the areas.
The Finance Ministry also intends to revise the way the objective values are determined by amending the coefficients of age, facade, level, etc, so as to come as close as possible to the actual market value of a property, combined with supply and demand in the real estate market. This means that the next couple of years will also see significant changes to the Single Property Tax and other charges calculated against the objective values.
As for the ENFIA of 2019, more than 7 million owners will get their new slips online in August: Those with property worth up to 60,000 euros will see a tax reduction of up to 30 percent, but those with bigger properties cannot expect a discount greater than 100 euros. No reductions should be expected by owners of mid-range properties of 200,000 euros or more, while even the owners of smaller assets who will enjoy a reduction may see that evaporate if their property is located in one of the zones whose objective value will go up in the summer.
UK: Debate over land value tax is set to rumble on
Many landowners have been upset by the Scottish Land Commission’s (SLC) appointment of the University of Reading to conduct research to assess, with reference to international experience, the potential of land value taxation (LVT) to contribute a more productive, accountable and diverse pattern of land ownership and use in Scotland and to identify a set of potential policy options that merit further consideration by the SLC.
This is quite different from simply raising tax revenues which could be achieved by rigorously ensuring multi-nationals pay the full amount due on their profits, or by clamping down on the use of offshore tax havens.
The fundamental problem with Scottish agriculture is the incredibly benign tax system for land that has led to increasing land values consistently outperforming the stock market, with all that capital growth going untaxed. No wonder land values have soared making it difficult for new entrants to get a first rung on the farming ladder.
LVT is a recurrent tax on landowners based on unimproved land value, usually levied as a percentage of the unimproved capital value of the site. Normally there is an assumption that the unimproved land has the right to be developed in accordance with its “highest and best use”. LVT is implemented in many countries, though several have moved away from it in part or in whole (for example South Africa and New Zealand).
According to economic theory, land value is the price of monopoly – the scarcer and less substitutable a parcel of land is, and the more attractive the location in relation to the market (consumers) and factors of production (labour, raw materials), the more valuable the land. The report argues that because land is a “gift of nature” and does not cost anything to produce, this value net of the value of any improvements may be taxed without harm to economic efficiency and production. Further, it is argued that where land values rise, such as on the grant of planning consent, this is due to the actions of the community, not the landowner or occupier.
In addition to the obvious purpose of raising revenue for government, economic theory suggests that LVT has a range of benefits that include encouraging highest and best use of land and capturing the uplift in private wealth that arises due to public investment. It may also encourage denser development and therefore limit urban sprawl, and it may stabilise the price of real estate by reducing and stabilising underlying land prices.
According to the report there is little firm evidence that these theoretical benefits have been achieved in the countries that have implemented LVT. It goes on to argue that politically, LVT can be challenging to implement. Political arguments against LVT centre on the windfall loss incurred by landowners, the difficulty in dismantling centuries of landownership rights, the impact on other taxes and the potential that a LVT would tax individuals with property wealth but who are cash poor and may not have the ability to pay.
The report goes on to outline a number of other technical issues that make LVT difficult to implement.
Not surprisingly, Scottish Land & Estates (SL&E), the organisation representing Scottish landowning interests agrees.
Sarah-Jane Laing, executive director of SL&E said: “We’ll need to reflect further on the details before commenting further, but we can say that taxation must be considered in the round, rather than looking at just one idea in isolation, and all the unintended consequences well thought through.
“Land value tax has been debated for many years but has not been taken forward by any administration because of the potential impact it may have on not just rural Scotland, but the whole of the country.”
I am inclined to agree and would much prefer a return to the old system of taxing land on the death of the owner. That would put downward pressure on land values by making more available to purchase, and could yield substantial sums to government at a time when ordinary, working folk are being squeezed by taxes.
Of course, such a policy would have to be carefully introduced to avoid breaking up viable family farms into uneconomic units. To that end, the death duties would have to kick in above a set value and on an incremental scale. More importantly, avoidance schemes, such as trusts that never die, would need to be outlawed.
UK: High Street faces being decimated with the loss of 10,000 shops next year after a torrid 2018 for retailers blighted by falling sales and online competition
- Experts predicted that 10,000 High Street jobs could be lost in the New Year
- House of Fraser, Evans Cycles, Maplin & Poundworld fell into administration
- HMV is the latest retailer to fall into administration, with 2,000 jobs at risk
An estimated 10,000 shops will be forced to close as online stores and rising business rates continue to put pressure on High Street retailers, experts have said.
It comes a month after the Local Data Company revealed the number of empty shops had risen by more than 4,400 in the first six months of 2018.
Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk, and High Street mainstays such as House of Fraser, Evans Cycles, Maplin and Poundworld have fallen into administration in the past 12 months.
HMV has become the first high-profile Christmas casualty as the retailer has fallen into administration again, with more than 2,000 jobs at risk.
Professor Joshua Bamfield, of the Centre for Retail Research, said more jobs are expected to be lost from the £366 billion-a-year retail industry next year.
He told the Mirror: ‘We are expecting about 10,000 shops to close in the next year. ‘A few years ago you could say there were certain retailers that would never go bust but you cannot say that any more. ‘Business rates are too high for stores to compete with online competitors.’
Retail analyst Richard Hyman said shops were fighting over ever-decreasing numbers of shoppers as more go online. Helen Dickinson, of the British Retail Consortium, said: ‘It’ll continue to be a ¬challenging retail environment over the next six months with another business rates rise.’
Huge discounts of up to 90 per cent have decimated retailers’ profit margins, even though shoppers spent a record £55 billion since Black Friday. Analysts say mega discounts have obliterated any profit for retailers from some of the cash going through the tills.
SportsDirect reduced a men’s Team Long Sleeve Polo Shirt from £29.99 to £2.99. ASOS cut a Brave Soul Tara Frill Shouder Vest from £15 to £2. Debenhams cut the price of a ladies’ Tog 24 ergo diamond crew neck top from £30 to £5.
The Entertainer cut some prices by 80 per cent. There is 60 per cent off at Gap and Topshop and 50 per cent off at Next, Oasis, Dorothy Perkins and Miss Selfridge, MoneySavingExpert.com said.
Julie Palmer, partner at Begbies Traynor, insolvency experts, said: ‘Retailers are relying on discounting tactics, either heavily cutting prices or giving vouchers to customers that buy their products, in the hope of increasing sales. But this is to the detriment of profit.
Richard Perks, the Mintel director of retail research, said: ‘Retailers training shoppers to wait for discounts before spending is crazy. They are undermining their own businesses.’
Ireland: Irish leader announces property taxes from wealthy areas will not be used in poorer communities
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has announced plans to see property taxes remain within the areas from which they are collected, rather than be equally distributed across the country as has been done in years past.
The Irish Examiner reports that as part of the proposed changes, millions of Euro collected in property taxes will no longer benefit areas that struggle financially. Taoiseach Varadkar insists there is a “better way” to manage property tax distribution.
The Taoiseach said: “We are certainly looking at reforming the property tax to ensure that all of the money you pay goes to your local authority.” “In urban local authorities and a few of the wealthier counties, about 20% [of property tax income] gets diverted to less well-off counties, and we think there is a better way to do that.” “There would still need to be an equalization fund to make sure those less well-off counties, particularly those down the western seaboard, don’t lose out.” “But I think people would prefer to see the actual tax they pay going to their own local authority.”
The Taoiseach has also said he wants to put an end to the loophole that first originated in 2013 that allows people who have purchased a house to avoid paying property taxes, citing that the current system is “not fair.” “The main thing we want to avoid is anyone facing a significant increase in their property tax because we just don’t want that to happen,” he said.
“I know people feel that because house prices have gone up a lot in the last four or five years that it means their property tax will go up by that amount. We are going to make sure that doesn’t happen.” “We want to make sure that the amount of revenue collected by the local authorities from property tax is roughly the same and that would mean making sure nobody faces a sudden increase in their property tax. That would not occur until 2020 at the earliest in any case.”
“One thing we can do, though, and we will have to consider this in the new year, is removing the exemption from homes that were bought since 2013. Anyone who bought a home in 2013, 2014, 2015 does not pay property tax.”
Compliments of the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI), a member of the EACCNY