As part of its ongoing education program in Latin America, the Lincoln Institute, with the Porto Alegre (Brazil) City Council, organized the “International Seminar on Property Taxation” in April 2001, to discuss equity and efficiency in property tax administration. More than 200 delegates came from 12 countries, 14 Brazilian states and 45 local authorities. Internationally recognized experts and public officials in government, academia, public finance and taxation represented such institutions as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI), the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO), the Brazilian Association of Secretariats of Finance of Capitals (ABRASF) and the Brazilian School of Fiscal Administration (ESAF). This article draws on the issues and experiences discussed at that seminar.

As in the United States, there is an ongoing debate in Latin America over the replacement of the property tax with alternative revenue sources, such as fees and charges, that might be easier to administer, less influenced by political factors and more efficient. Nevertheless, the property tax remains the predominant option for raising revenue to finance public services at the local government level in Latin America.

An important characteristic of the property tax is the great diversity found in its administration. For example, the property tax is a purely local tax in Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador, but it is administered at the province level of government in Argentina. In Mexico, the role of the local authorities has been reduced to primarily tax collection. In Chile, the property tax is an important revenue source for local governments, although the central government is responsible for administering the cadastral, assessment and collection systems. El Salvador is the only country in Central America that has never introduced the property tax, although currently there is strong pressure for establishing new taxes, since tax revenue represents only about 11 percent of GDP.

Insights on Property Tax Administration

In general the property tax is recognized as a ‘good tax’; its role is essential in the process of recovering revenue, funding public services and promoting social development. The unique nature of the property tax provides important links among wealth and income, social development, and land use and occupation. However, the property tax must be administered fairly to avoid inefficiency and inequity in the distribution of the tax burden. Concerns mentioned in several seminar sessions included the need for an adequate cadastre, as complete as possible in terms of coverage and containing basic attributes needed for assessing different types of properties. One discussion group recommended integrating the community in the continual process of updating cadastral data. Others emphasized the need for performing a careful cost and benefit analysis before implementing geographic information systems.

In countries where the cadastre is not administered by the central government, there is no standard model or system. Depending on the development level of the municipality and/or financial resources available, the cadastre technology can vary enormously from a simple list of properties to a cadastre based on a geographic information system with multiple purposes. Diverse valuation approaches are also observed: self-assessment is used in Colombia and Bolivia, whereas the cost approach is commonly used in Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico. Some local authorities in Brazil are engaged in a movement to use the sales comparison approach for residential property. In applying the cost approach, the land value is determined using the sales comparison approach. Although based on market information, the land value is also estimated in different ways, causing concerns over how to reduce assessment inequities.

Valuation is primarily a technical task that requires assessment uniformity and short valuation cycles, and should not be used for political purposes. Capping systems, which limit tax increases between consecutive periods for each individual property up to an overall adjustment based on annual inflation rates, are seen as a major source of assessment inequity. Transparency in the valuation results is considered fundamental for guaranteeing the taxpayers’ confidence in and acceptability of the tax system. Other basic premises include fiscal accountability, fairness, democratization of information, and translation of technical language into a form that is understandable to community members and leaders. Furthermore, community members should take part in making decisions on public revenue collection and expenditures.

A recent development of interest in this regard is the increasing use of Internet facilities by taxpayers to receive and pay tax bills, review statistical data on their property and update cadastral information. Chile is considered the benchmark in Latin America in the use of these technologies.

Experiences with Fiscal Reform

Several seminar presenters shared their experiences with property tax reform and revisions, which often include investments in cadastral systems. For instance, the improvement in the collection performance of the property tax in Colombia increased as a percentage of GDP from 0.22 percent in 1970 to 0.91 percent in 1994. This improvement was attributed in part to legislation that demanded the implementation and updating of the cadastre throughout the country. The strong pressure against updating assessed values, as well as administrative difficulties in undertaking valuations, resulted in the establishment of a self-assessment procedure. Taxpayers are now responsible for declaring the assessed value of their properties, but the value cannot be less than the recorded cadastral value. To reduce underassessment, the assessed value is also used as the basis for expropriation.

Fiscal reform initiatives in Argentina during the 1990s were strongly motivated by financial crises in the public sector. The reform project relating to the property tax was divided into two main areas, cadastres and fiscal administration. The equivalent of over US$ 120 million has been invested in these reforms, yet the project has been completed in only about 50 percent of the jurisdictions. In another example, Mexicali, the capital city of Baja California, pioneered the adoption of land value as the property tax base in the 1990s. Although this was a successful experience with property tax reform, current challenges in Mexico include achieving fiscal balance between public expenditure and revenue raised and recovering the importance of the property tax as a revenue source.

Property Taxation in Brazil

Political, legal and practical obstacles have contributed to the continuation of inequities and inefficiencies in the property tax in Brazil. Frequently there is no common interpretation of tax regulations among major branches of government (the judiciary, legislature and executive), creating a pervasive lack of confidence in the tax system. Primary concerns in property tax administration include incomplete and out-of-date cadastres, resulting in irreplaceable losses in revenue; poor assessment practices that generate a low degree of uniformity; the strong influence of historical assessed values, because valuation is infrequent and approval of a new valuation list in the Chamber of Councilors is often difficult; and low performance in tax collection.

The validity and feasibility of adopting progressive (sliding) rates for the property tax, was largely used adopted in Brazil during the 1990s, was reexamined. The basic idea had been to establish progressive rates according to classes of assessed value and to insert an element of ability-to-pay into the system, simultaneously making high-value properties pay more proportionally and alleviating the tax burden on low-value properties. In 1996, the Supreme Court declared the use of progressive rates for the property tax unconstitutional. However, a recent constitutional amendment authorized progressivity in the property tax rates based on the value of properties, as well as different rates based on property location.

Arguments expressed in the seminar against the application of progressive rates for the property tax were based on the principle of keeping the tax simple, and concerns about the measure’s effectiveness. Arguments in favor of progressivity included the concentration of income disparities in Brazil and the fact that the poor are likely to spend more proportionally in housing expenditures than are the wealthy. The majority of seminar participants believed that the progressive rates might promote a fairer distribution of the tax burden. However, progressivity should be gradual; that is, a higher rate should be applied only over the part of property value that exceeds the limit established in each class of assessed value, to avoid a large difference in tax burden for properties with values slightly above and below the boundaries of each class.

At the national level in Brazil, inefficient use of the property tax as a revenue source is widely recognized. Revenue from property taxes represents less than 0.4 percent of GDP. Indeed, the tax actually collected is only symbolic in many parts of the country. A recent survey of municipalities investigated several aspects of local government performance, including tax evasion. In only 13 percent of the municipalities was the tax evasion rate less than 20 percent. In one out of five municipalities, the revenue collected represented less than 20 percent of the properties included in the cadastre.

Table 1 demonstrates the relative importance of property tax revenue in Brazil, according to the size of the municipality. Small municipalities are financed largely by transfers from other government levels and larger municipalities are more dependent on the property tax as a revenue source. However, the performance of property tax administration depends directly on political will, which varies enormously among cities. For instance, due to an extensive updating of its cadastre, the city of Santana de Parnaíba, with 60,000 inhabitants in the State of São Paulo, collects approximately R$ 212.00 per inhabitant, while the average revenue collected from property tax for cities of its size (10,000 to 100,000 population) is R$ 10.04 per inhabitant. That performance is even better than in São Paulo, the capital of the state, which collects less than R$ 80.00 per inhabitant. Similarly, a participatory approach involving local community and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allows critical issues of property tax assessment and administration to be discussed, resulting in actions to improve the system. In the city of Ribeirão Pires, for example, measures that increased revenue by 40 percent included an ample review of the property tax legislation that allowed the adoption of better assessment practices, new property tax rates and more efficient procedures for tax collection. Furthermore, the tax reform has contributed to increasing the local government’s popularity.

Case Study of Porto Alegre

Inspired by the April seminar and previous research and analysis, the local government of Porto Alegre has prepared a proposal for a property tax reform aimed at increasing fiscal equity, enhancing the importance of the property tax as a revenue source, and creating more efficient administration of the tax. The project was presented on September 28 to the City Council, the entity in charge of either approving or rejecting the measures, which must be decided before the end of 2001.

A multidisciplinary team worked actively on the project, composed of local authority members, such as valuers, property tax experts, and urban and environmental planners, as well as a group of statisticians and information technology experts from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul. The measures being proposed have been discussed thoroughly with representatives of public associations, community leaders, the media and, of course, city councilors (See Table 2).

Conclusion

The participation of several hundred delegates at the seminar is evidence of the importance of property taxes in their countries. Although there is still an ample need for improving the overall performance of property tax systems, the debate demonstrated progress in the way the tax is administered and perceived in many parts of the region. Several independent experiences made it clear that political will is the principal element for explaining differences in the performance of property taxes in Latin America. Recent technological advances, now accessible to any country, have been able to provide better solutions in data management, valuation and assessment. Challenges are gradually moving from the technical to the political sphere. More than ever learning how to implement tax reforms and revisions is essential for pursuing more effective property tax systems. A trend toward using a participatory approach when undertaking such revisions is also evident, since public acceptance is likely to facilitate the reform process.

Claudia M. De Cesare is a property tax advisor to the Secretariat of Finance for the municipality of Porto Alegre, Brazil. She also conducts research and teaches courses on valuation and property taxation at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and the Lincoln Institute. She is a member of the advisory board of the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) and is active in other professional organizations.

Sidebar: Latin America Network On Property Taxation

The Lincoln Institute has recently formed informational networks of scholars and policy makers focused on several key issues in land and tax policy in Latin America. Led by Martim Smolka, senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, the first meeting of the property taxation network took place in conjunction with the seminar in Porto Alegre in April 2001. Network rpresentatives came from Argentine (Hector Serravalle), Brazil (Claudia M. De Cesare, Cintia E. Fernandes, Mauro Lunardi and Sol G. Pinto), Chile (Carlos Acuña), Colombia (Maria Camila Uribe and Claudia Puentes), Ecuador (Mario R. Maldonado), El Salvador (Roberto Cañas) and Mexico (Sergio Flores).

The network’s mission is to pursue more effective property tax systems in Latin America and to reinforce the role of the property tax as an alternative for local government revenue. The network will promote professional development, identify relevant themes for comparative research and educational programs, and disseminate information and experiences. The members of the network have prioritized the following projects:

• property tax indicators;
• annotated bibliography;
• database on institutions, permanent courses and educational programs;
• development of curriculum; and
• exchanges for professional learning.

Although isolated initiatives at national or state levels have improved cadastral systems, valuation procedures and communication skills in some countries, the network members agree there is still great potential for improving efficiency and equity in current tax systems. The members also wanted more accessible information and better communication on property tax issues in Latin America. Innovative experiences and lessons like those cited in the following article can be shared within the group. Future educational programs may be a source of inspiration for other municipalities, like Porto Alegre, facing challenges in property tax administration.

The recent fiscal crisis in Asia has affected systems of taxation and land use regulation throughout the region. The situation in Korea is typical. A series of collapses of large conglomerates led to a severe economic crisis, with 5.5 percent of total loans in default by the end of 1997. Currency and stock indexes fell to one-half their value within a year. Major measures to control the crisis, undertaken in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), include cutting government expenses by 10 percent and initiating a series of tax reforms to raise revenues.

In this context, a recent seminar on the taxation of real property in Asia provided a valuable and timely forum for the exchange of ideas. The seminar was hosted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Government of Korea at the Korea-OECD Multilateral Tax Center in Chonon in early March. Tax administrators from China, Korea, Singapore and Vietnam attended the two-part program, which included a four-day seminar on property taxation and a one-day workshop hosted by the Korea Ministry of Finance. My fellow instructors in the seminar were Michael Engelschalk of OECD’s Fiscal Division in Paris and Anders Muller of Denmark’s Ministry of Taxation.

Seminar Themes

The seminar addressed three major issues concerning local government systems for property taxation:

Local Revenues and Fiscal Decentralization:

Anticipating increased political and fiscal decentralization in many Asian countries, the seminar explored the role of local government within the national tax structure. These fundamental issues are particularly of interest to China, which is just beginning to develop a property tax system, and Korea, which is beginning to exercise stronger local autonomy.

Market Economy and Property Valuation:

For Vietnam and China, which are moving toward a market-based economy, establishing reliable sales information on property markets and developing effective valuation techniques are major challenges. Korea and Singapore, with their more advanced property tax systems, must be able to respond to a dynamic property market. Singapore’s annual value rating method and Korea’s market capitalization approach are very different systems, and the issue of improving valuation models remained a hotly debated subject during the seminar.

Taxation Administration and Enforcement:

Computerization, a collection process and legal procedures need to be developed and implemented in all governments to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of management and enforcement procedures. Political issues such as assignment of local and central government functions, determining ability to pay and the role of wealth taxation were also discussed extensively by the participants.

Tax Policy Issues in Asian Countries

Although China at present does not permit private ownership of land, three categories of taxes are applied to use rights:

taxes on land use (land use tax, land occupation tax and agricultural tax):

taxes on ownership of buildings (house tax and real estate tax); and

taxes on transactions (land appreciation tax, business tax, stamp duty and deed tax.)

Property tax reform in China is needed for two reasons: redundancy and out-of-date regulations. Even after the economic reforms of the 1980s, foreign investment in real property has been regulated and taxed according to a 1951 law. The central government has decided to reform and simplify property taxes by consolidating the domestic house tax with the land use tax for local people, consolidating domestic and foreign house taxes for foreigners, and possibly eliminating the deed tax.

Korea proposed a land value increment tax several years ago to capture the capital gains from land transactions, but the proposal was defeated. To capture land value increments and avoid speculation, Korea instead implemented a capital gains tax system that covers both real property and other asset transactions. To discourage land speculation, the tax rate will be fixed at 50 percent for property sales within two years of purchase, but owners who hold properties for more than two years will have a lower capital gains tax rate.

Korea’s GNP is expected to grow less than one percent in 1998 and tax revenues are projected to decline by US$4.4 billion. In response, the government designed a package to raise tax revenues by US$2.4 billion and to cut government expenditures by US$5.6 billion. In the tax reform package, minimum tax levels will generally be raised but capital gains taxes on land sales and value-added tax exemptions will be reduced.

Vietnam began reforming its tax system in 1990 with the introduction of uniform tax laws and ordinances across the country. Some examples are the 1994 Law on Agricultural Land Use Taxes, the 1992 Ordinance on Land and Housing Taxes, and the 1994 Law on Taxes on Land Use Right Transfer. Although Vietnam endorses a market economy, these central government regulations set the standard for all taxation administration. Property valuation (use value) is also defined by national law, although the taxable price is determined by the People’s Committee of the province or city, which is directly under central government power. In other words, the valuation is based on market value but must be approved by the People’s Committee.

In Singapore property owners pay an annual tax of 12 percent on the annual value of the property. The annual value for buildings is based on the estimated market rent per annum. The value for vacant land or land under development is derived from five percent of its estimated market value. The total annual tax in 1996-97 constituted six percent of the government’s operating revenue. Other property-related taxes include transfer taxes, inheritance taxes and development charges. Given the dynamic urban real property market and high land prices, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), which oversees the taxation system, is continuously developing new valuation and collection methodologies.

In summary, the demand for research on tax policies is critical in Asia. This seminar offered an educational environment where instructors and participants could share basic principles on the taxation of real property and learn from each others’ experiences.

Alven Lam is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute and academic dean of the Land Reform Training Institute in Taiwan.

The collapse of communism in the early 1990s launched an era of political and economic reforms in Russia and throughout the former Soviet Union that introduced democracy and the free market economy to countries that previously had no experience with either of these concepts. In Russia privatization of land was one of the first items on the reform agenda, and by the end of 1992 the Russian Parliament had adopted the federal law On the Payment for Land. This law set normative land values differentiated by regions to be used for taxation, as well as a basis for land rent and purchase. At the time the country had no land market, so this was considered a very progressive measure. Lands that were previously held in public ownership were rapidly distributed to individuals, and by 1998 some 129 million hectares of land were privately held by some 43 million landowners. Introduction of private ownership rights in land also meant the introduction of the land tax, since owners or users of land plots became eligible to pay for their real property assets.

Economic reforms in Russia were accompanied by inflation that ran thousands of percent annually. To maintain revenue yields, local and regional authorities adjusted normative land values accordingly. As land market activity started to develop in the mid-1990s, some of these authorities used market price information to make land value adjustments. As a result land taxes became absolutely inconsistent with the economic situation, and tax amounts were not comparable for similar properties located in different jurisdictions.

By the late 1990s the land tax system had developed faults that required tax reform on a nationwide scale. The basic outline of the tax reform included the following features:

• The land tax will become a local tax.
• While floating tax rates will be established by local governments, the maximum possible tax rates will be fixed by federal legislation.
• The federal government will develop rules and procedures for mass valuation of land plots.
• The tax base will be the cadastral value of land plots.
• Land cadastre authorities will provide information on taxable objects and their taxable land values to tax and revenue authorities.

Reform of the land tax is seen as part of a wider property tax reform. The current property tax system in Russia includes a number of taxes: individual property tax; enterprise property tax; land tax; and real property tax. While the first three are operational, the fourth tax has been tested as an experiment since 1997 in two cities, Novgorod Veliky and Tver (Malme and Youngman 2001, Chapter 6). It is expected that when Russia is in a position to introduce the real property tax nationally, the first three taxes will be canceled.

In 1999 the Land Cadastre Service of Russia, a land administration authority of the federal government, was delegated the responsibility to develop mass valuation methods and to implement the country’s first mass valuation of all land. The government chose mass valuation, identifying the sales comparison, income and cost approaches as the basic valuation models that needed to be developed. Land is valued at its site value as if it were vacant.

Implementation of a mass valuation system has been constrained by the lack of reliable land market data, however. The housing market is the only developed market in Russia that can be characterized by a large number of sales transactions. These transactions are spread unevenly throughout the country, with large cities characterized by many transactions and high prices for apartments, whereas small towns and settlements have few examples of real estate sales. The national land market recorded some 5.5 million transactions annually, with only about 6 percent of them being actual buying and selling transactions. Official data from land registration authorities could not be used as a data source because transacting parties often conceal the true market price to avoid paying transfer taxes.

This lack of reliable market data has forced the developers of mass valuation models to identify other factors that may influence the land market. The model developed for valuation of urban land included some 90 layers of information that were geo-referenced to digital land cadastre maps of cities and towns. Apart from available market information, these data layers included features of physical infrastructure such as transport, public utilities, schools, stores and other structures. Environmental factors also are taken into consideration.

Mass valuation methods in Russia have identified 14 types of urban land use that can be assigned to each cadastral block. Thus, the model can set the tax base according to the current or highest and best land use. The actual tax base established for each land plot is calculated as the price of a square meter of land in a cadastral block multiplied by the area of the plot.

It took one year of development and model testing and two years of further work to complete the cadastral valuation of urban land throughout Russia. Actual valuation results suggest that the model works accurately with lands occupied by the housing sector. The correlation between actual market data and mass valuation results is between 0.6 and 0.7 on a scale of 0 to 1.0, with greater accuracy in areas where the land market is better developed.

Cadastral valuation of agricultural land is based on the income approach, since availability of agricultural land market information is extremely limited. Legislation allowing the sale of agricultural land became effective in early 2002. The data used to value agricultural land included information on soils and actual farm production figures over the last 30 years. Mass valuation of forested lands was also based on the income approach. Russian land law also identifies a special group of industrial lands located outside the city limits that includes industrial sites, roads, railroads, and energy and transport facilities. These lands proved to be a difficult subject for mass valuation because there are so many unique types of structures and objects on them; individual valuation is often applied to them instead.

Over the past four years, some 95 percent of Russia’s territory has been valued using mass valuation methodology. The Federal Land Cadastre Service continues to refine and improve its methods in preparation for the enactment of relevant legislation authorizing the introduction of a new value-based land tax. During this period, the Cadastre Service organized a Workshop on Mass Valuation Systems of Land (Real Estate) for Taxation Purposes, in Moscow in 2002, under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. It also assembled a delegation for the Lincoln Institute’s course Introducing a Market Value-Based Mass Appraisal System for Taxation of Real Property, in Vilnius in 2003 (see related article).

Alexey L. Overchuk is deputy chief of the Federal Land Cadastre Service of Russia and deputy chairman of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party for Land Administration.

Reference

Malme, Jane H. and Joan M. Youngman. 2001. The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition: Case Studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/decentralization/library9/malme_propertytax.pdf

Daphne Kenyon, a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, heads D. A. Kenyon & Associates, a public policy consulting firm in Windham, New Hampshire. She also serves on the New Hampshire State Board of Education, to which she was appointed by Governor John Lynch (D) in 2006. Kenyon is writing a policy focus report for the Institute, titled Untying the Property Tax–School Funding Knot, which will be available in the fall of 2007.