IPTI | Property Tax in the News – April 2026

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

Ending Property Taxes Would Be a Mistake

Efforts underway in several states to abolish the tax could lead to heavy-handed, anti-growth government. Here’s how to reform it instead.

In the 1970s, the United States experienced an unprecedented public revolt against high property taxes. That movement became the springboard for a wider revolt against overbearing government. Fifty years later, America is in the midst of a new property-tax revolt, with some now calling for an end to the tax altogether. Opposing unnecessary taxation is always a noble goal in theory. But property taxes are the best available source of local revenue. If the revolutionaries succeed, they may actually create a more overbearing government and slow growth further.

The full extent of the property-tax revolt today is significant. Ohio state representative Bill Roemer, who led a property-tax reform bill last year, called it “the number one issue we hear about from Ohioans.” Kansas representative Steve Huebert said that “the number one issue we heard about was property taxes” and “it wasn’t even close.” There are major efforts in Georgia, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Indiana, Ohio, and Florida to eliminate all or almost all property taxes.

Just as in the 1970s, the new property-tax revolt was prompted by a rapid increase in home prices. Since property taxes are based on home value, these price increases often yield a higher tax bill: about a 0.6 percent increase for every 1 percent increase in home value, per a paper from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Increasing home prices are the most likely reason the real per capita cost of property taxes has gone up 40 percent since 2000.

Homeowners thus have legitimate reason to complain. But ending property taxes would be a cure worse than the disease. First: there are no good local alternatives to property taxes, which provide about three-quarters of all local tax revenue. A Tax Foundation study found that repealing property taxes in Florida would make it necessary to raise sales taxes to between 10 percent and 33 percent per purchase, depending on the county. In practice, sustaining these different tax rates would be nearly impossible, since people could easily drive across borders to buy cheaper goods.

The likely alternative – centralization of taxes at the state level, especially through higher income and sales taxes – would undermine growth. That’s because local governments are more favorable to growth when they can absorb its fiscal benefits through property taxes. A study in the Journal of Housing Economics found that countries with centralized finances tended to restrict housing growth. Countries that allowed local governments to keep more revenue, by contrast, permitted more development.

Many on the Left hate local property taxes precisely because they lead to more building. As one academic article explains, “The urban planners’ most frequent objection to local tax reliance [is] that it induces too much growth.” One reason places like Texas and Florida have grown is that these states allow local governments to keep much of the fiscal benefit from growth.

We’ve seen centralization’s harms in America. After California cut and capped property taxes under 1978’s Proposition 13, the legislature had to figure out how to distribute those taxes that remained. The result was a system, known as AB 8, which forever froze the distribution of property taxes as it was in the 1970s. If a local area had a mosquito-control district and a library district that got a certain proportion of property taxes when Prop 13 passed, for example, they received largely the same proportion of revenue decades later.

The system led local governments to be less favorable to growth and less able to respond to it. And it led Sacramento to assume ever more of the fiscal burden, which now manifests in the highest income taxes in the country.

While abolishing property taxes is counterproductive, there are many ways to reform them. States can create – or tighten, for those that have them – what are known as “levy limits,” which restrict the total amount of revenue governments pull in from property taxes. That means that if home values go up, local governments have to reduce the tax rate to keep their revenue steady.

States can also reform the way property taxes fund schools, to which about a third of all property taxes go. Many courts, even in red states such as Kansas, have required states to provide absurdly high levels of what the courts deem “adequate” funding or have required states to “equalize” funding across school districts. One of the best ways to limit tax increases would be to push back against these rulings and against state funding systems that mandate too much school spending, or which prevent local school districts from keeping most of their own property taxes.

Despite all of its problems, the property tax continues to be the best way to fund local governments and the best way to make local governments partners in growth. With appropriate adjustments, we can ease the burden of property taxes without eliminating their benefits.

Minnesota: Truth-in-Taxation forms can be a valuable tool for property owners

• Truth-in-Taxation notices estimate property taxes before final bills are issued

• Property owners have limited time to challenge valuations with assessors

• Taxes are based on both property value and local government levy rates

• Appeals must be filed by April 30 for the following year’s tax cycle

With tax season underway, many property owners, including owners of commercial property, have their eye on a tool that can affect their properties’ valuations, regardless of the tax rate that’s levied on them. Introduced in 1988, Minnesota’s Truth-in-Taxation (TnT) form was intended to enhance public participation in Minnesota’s property tax system. Under the terms of the form, each local government is required to formally adopt a proposed levy in September for the upcoming year.

Later in the year, meetings are held during which public testimony is heard prior to adopting a final levy. Then in the early part of the following year, county auditors generate parcel-specific notices of proposed taxes for all parcels of property based on the proposed levies.

“The purpose is that the counties are setting their tax rates and finalizing their budgets,” said Adam J. Pabarcus, a shareholder with Larkin Hoffman in Minneapolis. “The taxes you owe are a function of your property value and the tax rate. Property is valued in January for taxes payable the next year.” Assessors work on valuing property early in the year.

TnT notices for 2026 were sent out last November, based on that previous estimate of a property’s value. The notice serves as an estimate in anticipation of the actual tax bill that will be sent out later. The notice provides owners with the opportunity to budget for the tax payment – or to consider contesting the proposed valuation.

The notices, and the hearings that pertain to them, are generally coordinated by counties and municipalities, although the state does play a role. “We provide instructions for counties and other taxing jurisdictions,” said Ryan Brown, a spokesperson for the state Department of Revenue. “[That involves] prescribing the format of the proposed taxes notice and providing samples for county auditors and treasurers, and providing a certification of compliance and then reviewing the submitted certifications from required taxing jurisdictions.”

The details of TnT forms have changed little over the years. The last significant amendment took place in 2009, when the Legislature repealed two elements of the law: a requirement that each local government publish a newspaper ad showing proposed levy and spending amounts; and several regulations related to scheduling of the public meetings, which previously required an administrative process that ensured that no two hearings affecting the same taxpayer would ever be held simultaneously. Once owners receive their TnT forms, said Pabarcus, they’re encouraged to act quickly. “You have about a month to challenge your valuation with the assessor,” he said. “It’s different for every county and municipality, so property owners have to pay close attention to the dates and times that are on that sheet. Once those equalization meetings are over, your valuations are set.”

Government-established tax rates cannot be appealed. But if owners have reason to believe that a property might have been overvalued, misclassified, or taxed unequally, they can file a property tax petition with a district court, allowing them to negotiate with the county assessor. Property tax appeals for taxes payable next year must be filed on or before April 30.

Government-established tax rates cannot be appealed. But if owners have reason to believe that a property might have been overvalued, misclassified, or taxed unequally, they can file a property tax petition with a district court, allowing them to negotiate with the county assessor. Property tax appeals for taxes payable next year must be filed on or before April 30.

Pabarcus pointed to a number of indicators that a property’s assessed value might be too high. They include: a dramatic spike in market value compared to the previous year; a significant depreciation in the property; similar properties selling for less than the estimated market value received; and a unique feature of a property that makes it less marketable.

“Say your property’s value goes down, but the tax rate goes up,” he said. “Suddenly you’re paying more than you did the year before. Commercial property owners should definitely be taking stock of this because this is the first time they’re going be seeing what their tax liability will be for 2026.”

Fisher remarked that most owners use the TnT notice to just get a quick overview of assessed value and taxes due. “The notice provides more detail on how the tax rate was calculated and what the proposed taxes are for – county, city, school, and so on,” he said. “But I don’t think most people look at it at that granular level.”

Florida: Property tax debate continues after session ends

Florida legislators last week ended their session without a bill to end all homestead property taxes, a policy that has been promoted by Gov. Ron DeSantis consistently over the past year. But that doesn’t mean the matter is closed.

Lawmakers in Tallahassee will reconvene on April 20 already to finish two other pieces of major business: passing the state budget and drawing a new congressional map. If lawmakers want to get property tax elimination on the November ballot, they will need to pass a bill by May. It will then go to voters and will require a 60% supermajority to make it into the Florida constitution. DeSantis said in a news conference last week said another special Session is imminent for a tax ballot measure, which was somethings that “he did not want to push in the Regular Session.”

Local elected officials in Brevard County have signaled uneasiness around how government services will be funded if such a referendum were to pass. When discussing infrastructure funding and future development plans, officials have signaled uncertainty around the bill as a factor in their decision making. Republican legislators have said local governments will have to adjust and make cuts as needed if such a bill were to pass.

Some lawmakers like Palm Bay Republican Monique Miller, a major proponent of the measure, are hopeful that the Senate will take up the bill that the House already passed, one that would eliminate all non-education property taxes on primary homes. Funding for police, fire and emergency services would also be protected under the bill. Both leaders have said they want to come together to finalize the budget. I expect somewhere in there that they’ll tackle property taxes based on what they’ve said,” Miller said. “I don’t have any indication at this time what will happen.

The governor for a number of months said he has a plan. We have yet to hear that plan. We have yet to hear the Senate’s options. Until we have an indication, it’s going to be hard to forecast expectations,” she added.

Miller said House Republicans went “all in” on getting rid of property taxes, adding that she was disappointed that the Senate hadn’t shown the same level of enthusiasm for the policy. Her hope is that the governor will apply pressure to her colleagues in the upper house come next month’s special session. “It’s been so frustrating,” Miller said. “I will continue to be the vocal champion in terms of getting something across the line.”

Tyler Sirois, the Republican legislator from Merritt Island representing much of Central Brevard, said the bill passed by the House would have “been historic tax relief, but the Senate did not act on it.” “There is some indication the governor would like to see the legislature pass something this summer. I hope the Senate will join us in this effort,” Sirois said. “I hope we make it easier for seniors to downsize to a smaller home without a larger tax bill. I hope we provide relief to families that are seeing costs of everything rise but should feel secure in their home,” he added.

Washington: Caught in a Property Tax Trap – Here’s the Way Out

Washington state has a property tax problem. Actually, it has two, and the reason they keep going unsolved is that lawmakers have been treating them as separate issues when they are, in fact, the same problem. On one side: local governments across the state are slowly being starved of the revenue they need to deliver basic services. On the other: homeowners and renters are already stretched to the limit, and any proposal to raise taxes feels politically toxic and, for many families, genuinely unaffordable.

These two problems appear to be in direct conflict. They are not. There is a path through, but it requires the legislature to do something it has so far been unwilling to do, which is address both sides of the equation at the same time. Famously, Washington already has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country, relying heavily on sales and property taxes while lacking an income tax. Property tax reform is not just a housing issue. It is part of a broader reckoning with who bears the cost of funding public services in this state. In 2001, voters passed Initiative 747, which established the current 1% annual cap on property tax levy growth for most local governments. The intent was to protect taxpayers from runaway tax increases. But more than two decades later, Washington’s economy, population, and housing market have changed dramatically, while the revenue framework governing local government has not.

Local governments can only increase the revenue they collect from existing property by 1% each year, regardless of inflation or population growth. Inflation does not grow at 1% per year. Construction costs do not grow at 1% per year. Public employee wages do not grow at 1% per year. The gap is real and measurable. Local governments across Washington have been forced to cut services, defer maintenance, and rely increasingly on voter-approved levies and bonds to fill the hole.

Those voter-approved levies fall outside the cap, but they require elections, they are unpredictable, and they shift more of the tax burden onto homeowners in ways that are difficult to plan around.

Across Washington, cities and counties are already warning that the cap will force reductions in public safety staffing, delayed infrastructure maintenance, and cuts to basic services in the coming years. The Association of Washington Cities has documented this problem extensively. So has the Washington State Budget and Policy Center. This is not a matter of opinion. The 1% cap is slowly hollowing out the capacity of local government to function.

Last year, House Bill 2049 passed and was signed into law. But the bill that passed was not the bill that was proposed. Earlier versions would have allowed local governments to increase their property tax revenue by up to 3% annually, tied to population growth and inflation. That provision faced significant political opposition, and the legislature removed it before final passage. The 1% cap remains in place.

The reason the provision died is instructive. Increasing the cap without any accompanying relief mechanism means that homeowners, including seniors on fixed incomes, working families with tight budgets, and longtime residents in neighborhoods where values have risen far faster than wages, absorb the full cost of the increase. In a region like King County, where the median home value sits around $800,000, even a modest percentage increase in assessed value translates into hundreds of dollars in additional tax burden per household.

The legislature’s caution was not unreasonable. But caution without a solution is just inaction. Washington cannot rely on the current 1% cap indefinitely. Local governments will continue to deteriorate. The question is not whether to fix it. The question is how to fix it without making life harder for the families who are already struggling to stay.

Most states already provide some form of homestead protection for primary residences, a provision that reduces the taxable assessed value of a home, providing automatic relief to owner-occupants without requiring them to navigate a complex application process or hire a professional to find savings they are entitled to.

Washington has no such protection. Our constitution treats a family’s primary home the same as a commercial office building or a data center. That distinction matters, because a family’s home is not an investment vehicle. It is where people live, raise children, age in place, and build the kind of stability that makes communities function.

A homestead exemption would modestly rebalance the property tax system by recognizing that a primary residence plays a different role in the economy than investment property or commercial real estate. The constitutional path is difficult. It requires a two-thirds legislative vote and subsequent voter ratification. It is not impossible. It is the right thing to do, and the legislature has now had multiple sessions to act and has not.

Any property tax reform that focuses exclusively on homeowners is incomplete, because renters pay property taxes too. They just pay them indirectly, through their rent. When property tax costs rise for landlords, those costs get passed through. When property tax burdens are relieved, there is no guarantee that relief reaches tenants. In Seattle and many parts of King County, renters now make up the majority of households. That is why the third piece of this package matters.

An enhanced renter credit is not a perfect solution. But it is a direct, targeted mechanism that acknowledges a reality most property tax debates ignore: in a region where the majority of Seattle households rent, a reform that only helps homeowners is not a reform at all.

Washington keeps failing to solve this problem because it keeps debating these three things separately. The cap increase loses its protection mechanism. The homestead exemption stalls over constitutional complexity. The renter relief bill waits in a queue disconnected from anything larger. In most states, these elements function together as part of a single system: revenue growth for governments, structural protection for homeowners, and targeted relief for renters.

The path forward is not theoretical. The bills have been written. The need has been documented. What is missing is the political will to treat these three reforms as what they actually are: one problem, one solution, and one overdue decision.

CANADA

Alberta: Provincial government hikes taxes on Albertans

Albertans are being hit by higher taxes because the provincial government is scrambling to cover its overspending. The government is borrowing another $9.4 billion while tipping the provincial debt over $100 billion for the first time in history.

Instead of cutting the size and cost of the government and eliminating wasteful spending, the government is screwing over Alberta taxpayers. There’s a new tax on rental cars, a hiked tax on hotels and a huge provincial property tax increase.

First, let’s take a look at the taxes on people who travel and work in our province. The government is slapping a new 6% tax on car rentals in Alberta and it’s hiking its hotel tax up to 6%. The province is trying to spin this as a tax on tourists and since we won’t see them again, it’s fine to mug them with higher costs. But that’s not the case. About 80% of people who stay in hotels and rent cars in Alberta are residents of Alberta, so these tax hikes will just hurt Albertans.

People rent cars and stay in hotels for insurance reasons, family trips and work events. Many businesses get their employees to rent vehicles and stay in hotels for work, so this will also hurt Alberta businesses outside of the car rental agencies and hotels themselves.

This new car rental tax also means someone who’s been in a car crash will pay more to rent a temporary ride. This tax hike on hotels means families taking their kids to West Edmonton Mall or Drumheller will pay more. It means workers in sectors from the oilsands to the rodeo circuit will be paying more for a room while travelling on the job.

The province plans to rake in about $36 million from the vehicle rental tax and about $200 million from the hiked hotel tax in 2026-27.

The government is hiking taxes on Albertans when they travel away from home. The government is also hiking taxes on Albertans for the homes they own. The Education Property Tax rates will rise to $2.84 per $1,000 for residential and farmland properties, and $4.17 per $1,000 for non-residential properties.

Most folks know property taxes are typically imposed by city halls, but this Education Property Tax is a sneaky property tax hike imposed by the province. The average house price in Alberta is about $513,000. Those property owners will be paying about $1,457 in the Educational Property Tax to the provincial government.

That cost doesn’t include the municipal tax bill or other taxes. The provincial government is banking on taking in an additional $468 million due to this property tax hike. That means the total education property tax bill will be $3.6 billion for 2026-27. Readers will remember the strike by government school teachers in the fall. The union was demanding more spending.

The government was already spending $8.6 billion building and updating schools and offering a contract that made Alberta teachers the highest paid in Western Canada. The union demanded $2 billion more. When a government union demands more money, it’s important to remember where that money comes from: the bank accounts of taxpayers.

Spending on kindergarten to grade 12 education has jumped up by 13.6% over the last two years and that money is now being pulled out of the pockets of homeowners from Medicine Hat to Grande Prairie. Instead of shaking taxpayers down for money, the government should have cut wasteful spending.

If the government had cut the size of the bureaucracy back to pre-2020 levels, it would have saved billions. If the government had cut the number of directors at Alberta Health Services who are being paid more than $159,000 per year in half, it would have saved about $28 million.

The government didn’t even bother to cut spending on obvious waste such as arts funding that makes transit station decorations out of garbage. Instead, it hiked funding for the Alberta Foundation for the Arts by $3.5 million, and it’s planning on handing over $43 million in taxpayers’ money to that group next year. This government didn’t even try to save money in the budget. Instead, it’s hiking sneaky taxes on Albertans.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

EUROPE

Spain: 100% Non-EU Property Tax Stalls in Congress

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s plan to tax ⁠ non-European ⁠Union property buyers up to 100% ⁠ of the value of the purchase has stalled due to difficulties in gaining the needed support from political minorities, a government source said. The plan, which was unveiled in January 2025 and made headlines around the world, aimed to reduce competition for local buyers from higher-income foreign purchasers in a country facing a severe housing shortage.

The world’s second-most visited country after France is also among ⁠ the European nations ⁠ where public anger is most acute over affordable housing shortages, with rental supply halving since the pandemic. Sanchez, a socialist, told a political rally days after announcing the measure his intention was to effectively ban non-EU property buyers “since they only do so to speculate”. Despite the headlines the bill generated when it was announced a year ago, it still had not been debated by March 2026, parliamentary documents showed. The Socialist-led minority government relies on a patchwork ⁠ of ⁠ smaller parties who support legislation on ⁠ a case-by-case basis and has found it increasingly hard to gain support for legislation as Sanchez’s term progresses.

A senior government source, who asked to remain anonymous, said new ⁠ taxes are among the most difficult issues on which to gain majority support. Right-wing Catalan separatist party Junts, which recently withdrew its support for the government, opposes the tax. “The government has chosen to limit, ban and penalize instead of addressing the real issue: a lack of housing supply,” Junts lawmaker Marta Madrenas said. Far-left Podemos on the other hand said the government lacked the “political courage” to ⁠ ban all purchases of houses not intended for residential use. The government source said it would continue ⁠ to raise the 100% tax for debate in Congress, but the measure was not included in a second housing bill put up for debate last year to regulate short-term rents. With elections slated for August 2027 at the latest, the government now risks running out of road.

UK: Around £1.8bn in business rates predicted to be handed back to firms

Around £1.8 billion of business rates payments are expected to be handed back to firms, according to Government figures.

Modelling by the Treasury has indicated it expects significant rebates in the face of changes to business rates valuations, which are due to take force at the start of the new tax year in April.

The figures were disclosed in official modelling published under the Freedom of Information Act to global tax firm Ryan.

Many firms are expecting to face higher bills due to updates to rateable values – the property valuations that the tax payments are based on – which come into force next month and are based on calculations from 2024.

A number of sectors, such as hotels, have said firms are expecting higher bills as a result despite a reduction in the multiplier used to calculate the property tax bills.

The fresh data for setting the latest multipliers showed that ministers have forecasted a £3.59 billion reduction in rateable value due to potential successful appeals for the 2026 local ratings lists. This is expected to result in a roughly £1.8 billion return from appeals.

Businesses can launch a check, challenge and appeal (CCA) process where they disagree with business rates calculations. Nevertheless, corrections following appeals can take a significant time to crystalise.

Ryan said the data reveals that 8% of the projected corrections are forecast to take place in the 2026/27 financial year, with 13% of this a year later.

Alex Probyn, principal and practice leader at Ryan, said: “If a large proportion of adjustment is forecast to fall into the next rating cycle, then that has implications for certainty and planning. “Business rates liabilities feed directly into investment and capital expenditure decisions. Timely resolution matters.”

The Government is currently consulting on the future direction of business rates through an ongoing Call for Evidence. Mr Probyn added: “The allowance for correction is already built into fiscal planning. Earlier resolution would not alter that; it would provide clarity sooner.”

 

 

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