Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
La informalidad desenfrenada, tan emblemática de las grandes ciudades de países en vías de desarrollo, plantea muchos retos a los sistemas de tributación inmobiliaria. Por ejemplo, los derechos de tenencia en asentamientos informales a menudo están poco claros o incluso son desconocidos; se construyen edificios gradualmente con el tiempo, la construcción por cuenta propia es común, y es posible que la unidad completa no se termine nunca; el valor de la propiedad depende de factores poco claros o intangibles como la seguridad proporcionada por organizaciones comunitarias; el ocupante o incluso el propietario legal puede ser demasiado pobre para pagar impuestos; los costos administrativos de recaudación de impuestos son mayores que en las áreas formales, mientras que los valores evaluados son a menudo mucho menores; y apenas si hay inversiones públicas en infraestructura y servicios.
Estas características críticas de la vivienda informal parecen violar muchas de las premisas en que se basa la administración de un sistema de tributos inmobiliarios: identificación de propiedades imponibles y sus contribuyentes correspondientes; descripción de las características físicas de la propiedad; determinación de los valores de la propiedad según un mercado razonable y de acuerdo con medidas predecibles; la supuesta capacidad de pago del contribuyente; costos de recaudación que son relativamente bajos en comparación con los ingresos recaudados; y una expectativa de que los ingresos tributarios beneficiarían al área de donde se recaudaron los tributos.
Esta comparación describe la esencia del sentido común sobre ocupaciones informales y las razones por las que generalmente se omiten para fines tributarios, pero los conceptos erróneos y los prejuicios son evidentes. Este artículo examina algunos de los sesgos y sus consecuencias para la recaudación de impuestos inmobiliarios en áreas informales. La situación latinoamericana se usa para ilustrar este debate, pero este estudio sigue siendo exploratorio debido a la limitación de datos. Los argumentos que se tratan indican direcciones prometedoras para efectuar análisis adicionales, más que resultados concluyentes en la mayoría de los casos.
Ocupaciones informales
En la ocupación del suelo y en la vivienda, la informalidad es un fenómeno multidimensional que comprende asuntos espinosos relacionados con la tenencia de tierras: el incumplimiento de normas y reglamentos urbanos, como el tamaño mínimo de las parcelas, adjudicación de suelo para espacios públicos, y disposiciones de calles; provisión inadecuada de servicios públicos y equipamiento; y ocupación de áreas indebidas, como áreas medioambientalmente protegidas o de riesgo ecológico, y sitios industriales contaminados.
Los asentamientos informales originados por invasión de tierras es la primera imagen de informalidad que se nos viene a la cabeza, pero hay otras formas sociales y físicas de informalidad que van desde subdivisiones piratas, caracterizadas normalmente por ventas en el mercado de suelo sin un título definido, hasta situaciones donde incluso los propietarios legalmente capacitados con título de propiedad para sus tierras no se ajustan a las normas y reglamentos urbanos existentes.
Según las Naciones Unidas – Hábitat (2003), unos 928 millones de personas (el 32 por ciento de la población urbana mundial o el 43 por ciento de la población de países en desarrollo) viven en la actualidad en asentamientos informales con una infraestructura urbana precaria y servicios públicos inadecuados. Si siguen las tendencias y políticas actuales, el informe estima que la población de los asentamientos informales aumentará en 37 millones por año hasta alcanzar un total de 1.500 millones de habitantes en 2020. Aunque América Latina cuenta con el 9 por ciento de la población mundial, incluye aproximadamente el 14 por ciento de los que viven en asentamientos informales.
¿Por qué es la informalidad un problema?
La informalidad desorganiza el funcionamiento de los mercados inmobiliarios urbanos, ya que los operadores ilegales, irregulares y clandestinos pueden obtener mayores beneficios evitando algunos costos, como los impuestos, el costo de proteger el suelo contra las invasiones o el costo de proporcionar infraestructura y servicios urbanos básicos. Contrariamente a lo que se cree, los precios del suelo por metro cuadrado en asentamientos informales son a menudo mayores que los de áreas formales, una vez que se descuentan las inversiones relacionadas con el suministro de agua, electricidad, drenaje, alcantarillado y otros servicios.
Además, la informalidad es costosa para la sociedad. Los costos de políticas de remedio para mejorar los asentamientos irregulares son mayores que el costo de una nueva urbanización, y los costos sociales indirectos incluyen la presencia de actividad delictiva y catástrofes naturales causadas por la urbanización en áreas ambientalmente sensibles. La evidencia sugiere también que la informalidad es tanto causa como efecto de la pobreza urbana. La distribución geográfica de la pobreza tiende a superponerse con la pauta espacial de configuraciones informales, aunque la magnitud y la persistencia de la informalidad no pueden ser explicadas totalmente por la pobreza. En un estudio llevado a cabo por el Instituto Pereira Passos (2002) basado en el censo brasileño de 2000, se llegó a la conclusión de que aproximadamente el 64 por ciento de la población clasificada como pobre vivía realmente fuera de las áreas pobres y superpobladas.
Mitos de informalidad
Hay muchos mitos predominantes acerca de cómo se establecen u operan los asentamientos informales, incluida la percepción de que los ocupantes de las áreas informales no quieren ni pueden pagar tributos inmobiliarios. De hecho, los ocupantes no sólo desean pagar el tributo como forma de legitimar su tenencia del suelo, sino que a menudo pueden pagarlo. Los nuevos ocupantes, de hecho, ya han pagado el tributo inmobiliario en forma de mayores precios del suelo, pero el pago fue a parar al fraccionador o al terrateniente original en vez de al gobierno.
Además, es probable que el pago del tributo inmobiliario por los ocupantes de las áreas informales legitime su derecho a exigir servicios públicos y otras mejoras urbanas a las autoridades gubernamentales. Muchos ocupantes informales también se dan cuenta de que el suministro privado de servicios básicos a través de medios informales, como comprar agua de un camión, es probablemente más costoso y arriesgado que el pago del tributo inmobiliario.
Otros mitos o suposiciones sobre la informalidad incluyen la creencia de que los ocupantes de asentamientos informales son necesariamente pobres, que los asentamientos informales están ocupados sólo por trabajadores sin empleo e informales, que es necesario un título formal de la propiedad para tener acceso a crédito, que los asentamientos informales son entidades homogéneas claramente diferentes de los asentamientos formales, y que la ocupación de asentamientos informales se hace mediante transacciones fuera del mercado.
Recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios
Para intentar relacionar la recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios por habitante con la presencia de informalidad, hemos usado datos basados en un estudio de municipios llevado a cabo en 1999 por el Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE 2001). La Tabla 1 presenta datos que medían dos criterios: la presencia de asentamientos informales (es decir, barrios pobres y sobrepoblados causados por invasiones) y la existencia de todo tipo de urbanización irregular. Hay asentamientos informales presentes en el 27,6 por ciento de todos los municipios de Brasil, donde la urbanización irregular (incluidos estos barrios) está presente en casi el 44 por ciento de ellos. El valor máximo de los tributos inmobiliarios recaudados es mayor en los municipios más grandes y los que tienen asentamientos informales y otras urbanizaciones irregulares, y los ingresos también tienden a ser mayores por promedio que en esos municipios sin dicha urbanización.
No obstante, la Tabla 2 muestra la dificultad de supervisar los registros de propiedad inmobiliaria y la recaudación de impuestos comparando la presencia de catastros en municipios con registros sobre asentamientos informales. Los catastros locales cubren la información sobre asentamientos informales en el 52,5 por ciento de los municipios, pero sólo el 39 por ciento de esas ciudades disponen de registros completos de informalidad. En comparación, el 50,5 por ciento de los municipios con urbanizaciones irregulares ha incluido esta información en sus catastros, y el 51 por ciento de los casos con registros tienen información completa. Así pues, no se puede rechazar la hipótesis de que los municipios más grandes, más ricos y más urbanizadas sean también los que tienen mejores registros de ocupaciones informales.
Se ha desarrollado un modelo para un análisis de regresión múltiple a fin de probar la relación entre la informalidad y el tributo inmobiliario recaudado por habitante usando la base de datos del IBGE. La relación estaba controlada con otros atributos disponibles en la base de datos, incluidos el ingreso promedio por habitante, el tamaño de la población, y un grupo de variables asociadas con la función de la administración local en la promoción de la urbanización. Según este modelo, que explica aproximadamente el 72 por ciento de la variación en los tributos inmobiliarios recaudados por habitante, se ha demostrado que los factores siguientes influyen en la determinación de la cantidad de tributos inmobiliarios recaudados.
Además del nivel de ingresos, lo averiguado indica claramente la importancia de una administración efectiva de los tributos inmobiliarios. En otras palabras, incluso en presencia de informalidad, los municipios logran mejores resultados en términos comparativos si mantienen catastros y mapas actualizados, incluyen propiedades informales en el catastro y tienen una estructura legislativa urbana más amplia. En resumen, al concentrarse estrictamente en el rendimiento de los tributos inmobiliarios, la causa principal de preocupación no es la presencia de la informalidad misma, sino la forma en que los funcionarios públicos tratan la misma para fines tributarios inmobiliarios.
Los tributos inmobiliarios como herramienta para disminuir la informalidad
Es probable que unos tributos inmobiliarios más vigorosos afecten a la informalidad de forma directa. Por ejemplo, la parte de los tributos inmobiliarios impuestos sobre el valor del suelo constituye un fuerte antídoto para forzar la salida al mercado de los suelos servidos existentes. Los tributos inmobiliarios también pueden ser importantes como herramienta para influir en el proceso de toma de decisiones para las áreas que deben recibir servicios urbanos. De hecho, las comunidades sin un sistema de tributos inmobiliarios son particularmente vulnerables en lo que se refiere a atraer la atención pública.
Los tributos inmobiliarios también pueden ser un mecanismo educativo para ayudar a los ciudadanos a comprender sus derechos y obligaciones, incluida la necesidad de contribuir a los gastos públicos. El compromiso del gobierno de adjudicar los ingresos fiscales de forma justa y equitativa da una mayor legitimidad al tributo. Además, un tributo inmobiliario puede ser un mecanismo para reducir los precios del suelo mediante el efecto de capitalización (Bahl y Linn 1992). Normalmente, el reconocimiento de ocupación por parte del gobierno local no tiene un efecto directo legal para garantizar los títulos inmobiliarios en el registro público, pero los ocupantes informales pueden percibirlo como una especie de vía libre para tener acceso al mundo jurídico.
Rabello de Castro (2000) ha declarado que hay motivos jurídicos firmes para usar los catastros para fines tributarios inmobiliarios a fin de legitimar derechos de tenencia, y que los tribunales no tendrían dificultad en admitir dichos registros como evidencia fiable. Por último, existe una ventaja en que el tributo inmobiliario cubra la propiedad informal, ya que su aplicación requiere conocimientos específicos del área, lo que tiene un valor incalculable para la administración de la ciudad.
Recomendaciones políticas
La informalidad plantea desafíos particulares para la administración de tributos inmobiliarios, incluida la necesidad de diseñar procedimientos viables y políticamente aceptables. A continuación indicamos algunas recomendaciones políticas para su consideración.
Aun cuando la mayoría de las propiedades informales se excluye de las listas de propiedades, los requisitos anteriores deberían aplicarse a propiedades informales si se logra un mayor nivel de eficiencia en la recaudación de impuestos. El argumento sobre los elevados costos de recaudación para excluir las propiedades de bajo valor (o familias de bajos ingresos, en otras palabras) de las listas de impuestos debe compararse con los beneficios de promover una ciudadanía fiscal más amplia.
Visión a más largo plazo
Puede que la recaudación de tributos inmobiliarios en las áreas informales no sólo sea posible en determinadas circunstancias, sino también atractiva con el fin de seguir una política urbana más efectiva que sea capaz de paliar la informalidad y sus efectos negativos para la sociedad en general y para los ocupantes individuales de estos asentamientos en particular.
A pesar de la dificultad de proporcionar evidencia empírica sobre sus efectos teóricos en el mercado del suelo, es probable que la parte del tributo inmobiliario impuesto sobre el valor del suelo produzca efectos cruciales para mitigar las distorsiones y disfunciones en los mercados del suelo con un elevado grado de informalidad. Estos efectos incluyen estimular la urbanización; disuadir la especulación del suelo; reducir los precios del suelo; aumentar el suministro de suelo urbanizado; alentar ciudades más compactas; promover una provisión más eficiente de infraestructuras y servicios urbanos; y alentar una pauta de urbanización más racional. Entre los beneficios indirectos se pueden incluir la importancia de la información generada para identificar la propiedad, el uso de tributos inmobiliarios pagados como medio parajurídico para legitimar derechos de tenencia, y por último la oportunidad de tener acceso a la ciudadanía e integrarse en la sociedad.
En resumen, al concentrarse en el rendimiento del tributo inmobiliario, la causa principal de preocupación no es la informalidad propia, sino la forma en que los funcionarios públicos tratan la informalidad y cómo administran un sistema tributario inmobiliario. En este contexto, la introducción de los tributos inmobiliarios en un entorno con informalidad desenfrenada requiere tomar precauciones especiales. Los retos para operar los tributos inmobiliarios en áreas informales incluyen la necesidad de entender el mercado informal, frenar la intervención de las reclamaciones de propiedad inmobiliaria de propietarios anteriores o ausentes, mejorar la capacidad administrativa y legitimar acciones públicas que redunden en beneficios para los pobres. Además, los funcionarios públicos necesitan superar los prejuicios y conceptos erróneos referentes a la informalidad e introducir iniciativas tributarias inmobiliarias eficientes que puedan reducir realmente la informalidad.
Martim O. Smolka es Senior Fellow y Director del Programa del Lincoln Institute sobre América Latina y el Caribe en el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Claudia M. De Cesare es asesora en tributos inmobiliarios del Secretariado de Finanzas del municipio de Porto Alegre, Brasil. Forma parte del comité consultivo del International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) y es miembro del cuerpo docente del Lincoln Institute.
Referencias
Abramo, Pedro. 2003. A teoria econômica da favela: quatro notas sobre a localização residencial dos pobres e o mercado imobiliário informal, in A cidade da informalidade: o desafio das cidades latino-americanas, Pedro Abramo (Org.). Rio de Janeiro: Librería Sette Letras, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro y Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Bahl, R.W., and Johannes F. Linn. 1992. Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries (Finanzas públicas urbanas en países en desarrollo). Washington DC: Oxford University Press.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2001. Perfil dos municípios brasileiros: Pesquisa de informações básicas municipais, 1999. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
Instituto Pereira Passos. 2002. Evolução da população de favelas no Rio de Janeiro: Uma reflexão sobre os dados mais recentes. Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. www.rio.rj.gov.br
Rabello de Castro, S. 2000. Habitação: Direito e governança – Duas sugestões para ação governamental. Fundação João Ribeiro. Cadernos de Textos 2: 321–338.
ONU–HÁBITAT. 2003. The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements (El reto de los asentamientos informales: informe global sobre asentamientos humanos). Nairobi, Kenia: Programa de de las Naciones Unidas para los Asentamientos Humanos.
SHARE
A major tragedy of empirical work is the low ratio of analysis to data, in part due to the lack of publicly available datasets. Many data collectors are reluctant to share data with other researchers until they have harvested all its new insights. Accordingly, researchers often collect new data because they cannot access existing information.
A new initiative of the Lincoln Institute is to compile data relevant to the analysis of land and tax policy, make it available on our Web site, and encourage new research. Three very different datasets are currently available, and a fourth is under development.
Significant Features of the Property Tax. This database title refers to the well-known publication, Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, produced by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, which between 1959 and 1996 reported on the relationships among local, state, and national levels of government. This online and interactive database, produced and continually updated in partnership with the George Washington Institute of Public Policy, presents property tax data for all 50 states
Great care is taken to ensure that data reported across jurisdictions are comparable and similarly defined. Users may access property tax information and data online in standard tables or create new downloadable tables containing the specific data they seek. Unlike many interactive databases, Significant Features also includes many table entries in text that explain, for example, how each state categorizes property, defines taxable value, and restricts or caps rates and assessments.
Land and Property Values in the U.S. These more traditional tabular files contain numeric data on the values and rents of residential properties in the United States. The national ratio of rents to prices for the stock of all owner-occupied housing is available quarterly from 1960 to the present. National indices of prices and values of housing (land inclusive of structures), land, and structures are available quarterly from 1975 to the present and annually from 1930 to the present. For 46 metropolitan areas, quarterly indices of prices and values of single-family, owner-occupied housing (land inclusive of structures), land, and structures are available from 1985 to the present.
The implicit rents of owner-occupied housing, the value of structures, and the value of residential land are rarely observed directly, and therefore are estimated using techniques that are explained on the Web site. These data were created and are updated by Morris A. Davis, a fellow at the Lincoln Institute and faculty member at the University of Wisconsin School of Business, Department of Real Estate and Land Economics.
University Real Estate Development Cases. Many university real estate development projects involve the expansion of facilities, the upgrading of neighboring properties, and long-term investment in real estate. Such projects are often controversial when they displace current residents and businesses or transform neighborhoods. As part of the Lincoln Institute’s research on town-gown issues, this database presents quantitative and qualitative information on 897 projects that are outside traditional campus boundaries. These cases provide a useful composite picture of recent university real estate activities.
Digital Maps of Urban Spatial Extension. Visiting fellow Shlomo Angel is examining the spatial growth of a sample of global cities and has created a set of digital maps derived from satellite data and historic sources. Focusing on measures of developed versus undeveloped land, the maps form the basis for several Lincoln Institute working papers on the spatial growth of cities over time. The maps will exist as digital files that can be downloaded and analyzed by others who want to pursue related work.
These datasets are the Lincoln Institute’s first steps toward increasing the availability of data to researchers, analysts, policy makers, and concerned citizens with an interest in land policy and taxation. The information is freely accessible on the Tools and Resources section of the Institute Web site at www.lincolninst.edu.
SHARE
Karl E. Case is professor of economics emeritus at Wellesley College, where he held the Katherine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Chair in Economics and taught for 34 years. He is currently a senior fellow at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.
Professor Case is also a founding partner in the real estate research firm, Fiserv Case Shiller Weiss, Inc., and serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Depositors Insurance Fund of Massachusetts. He is a member of the Standard and Poors Index Advisory Committee, the Academic Advisory Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, and the Board of Advisors of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston at Harvard University. He has served as a member of the boards of directors of the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), Century Bank, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association. He was also an associate editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives and the Journal of Economics Education.
After receiving his B.A. from Miami University in Ohio in 1968, he spent three years on active duty in the Army and received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1976. His research has been in the areas of real estate, housing, and public finance. He is author or coauthor of five books including Principles of Economics, Economics and Tax Policy, and Property Taxation: The Need for Reform, and he has published numerous articles in professional journals. Principles of Economics, a basic text coauthored with Ray C. Fair and Sharon Oster, is in its tenth edition.
Land Lines: How did you become involved with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy?
Chip Case: I learned about the Lincoln Institute in the 1970s, when it was sponsoring conferences for the Taxation Resources and Economic Development (TRED) Committee. I had written my dissertation on property taxes and had been invited to attend one of those conferences. In the fall of 1980, I began my first sabbatical year from Wellesley College and needed a way to fund my research. I arranged a meeting with Arlo Woolery, who was executive director of the Institute at the time, and he agreed to support my work.
My relationship with the Lincoln Institute has continued over the four decades since then. I was on the Board of Directors in the mid-1990s and on the executive search committees for H. James Brown, the former president of the Lincoln Institute, and Gregory K. Ingram, the current president and CEO. I taught at many Institute-sponsored programs with the Land Reform Training Institute (now the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training) in Taiwan for 15 years, and have participated in programs in Cuba and China multiple times as well.
Much of my research is in the spirit of what the Institute is about, and I continue to make regular presentations at various conferences and seminars. I was especially pleased to be involved with a conference on “Housing and the Built Environment: Access, Finance, Policy,” held in Cambridge in December 2007. The Institute later published the papers and commentaries as “Essays in honor of Karl E. Case” in a volume titled Housing Markets and the Economy: Risk, Regulation, and Policy, edited by Edward L. Glaeser and John M. Quigley.
Land Lines: What sort of work have you done for the Lincoln Institute recently?
Chip Case: Earlier this year I served as a discussant for the “Urban Economics and Public Finance Conference,” which was organized by Lincoln Institute visiting fellow Daniel McMillen with the Department of Valuation and Taxation. This annual program brings together leading scholars in the fields of urban economics and public finance to present and discuss their research. It’s a great forum and a good opportunity to showcase new empirical work.
I also recently returned from a Lincoln Institute program in Beijing, where I gave a series of lectures to planners and economists at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. My role was to help decipher what has been happening in the U.S. housing market and to provide insight into the relationship between the housing market crash and the current financial crisis.
Chinese officials are very interested in learning from the market experience of the United States. To say that the housing market in China is in a boom period would be an understatement. In most cities, the market is straining under the limited amount of available land and insufficient infrastructure. The government has recognized that the rapid growth poses a challenge to its market authority and at the same time realizes that the growth can be harnessed as a source of potential revenue for the country’s cities.
Land Lines: What did you learn about the problem of local government finance in China?
Chip Case: Local governments in China own all the land inside their jurisdictions, and they have traditionally raised money by signing long-term leases on that land with joint ventures and other business interests that then use the land for development. The revenue from these leases has enabled local jurisdictions to provide the necessary public goods and infrastructure without ever collecting a tax.
Lately some jurisdictions are running out of new, undeveloped land to lease and thus are losing the source of revenues they need to support local schools, infrastructure, and health services. China has never had a property tax, but a property tax system has been recommended as a solution to falling local revenue. Convincing the local officials to implement a property tax, however, has proven to be a political challenge for many reasons.
Land Lines: How does your research relate to the work of the Lincoln Institute?
Chip Case: I have studied land and property tax issues for a long time. I published my doctoral dissertation under the title Property Taxation: The Need for Reform. My early interest in the property tax led me to think about the housing market, its inefficiencies and failures. I have written about the efficiency of the property tax and about the distributional effects of land prices and increases.
A significant component of my research deals with measuring land value and assessing how land value affects the location of labor markets and the allocation of resources and public goods. When someone buys a house, that person is buying access to a package of rights that is tied to the piece of land under the house. The value of the package of rights is capitalized into the cost of the house and is taxed as a component of the property’s assessed value. The package of rights–what is included and how it varies by location–is a hot issue right now, in no small part because of the current state of the housing market and its resulting impact on the financial stability of the country’s economy.
Land Lines: Tell us more about your interest in the property tax.
Chip Case: I’m an unabashed fan of the property tax. It has the potential to operate as a clear, transparent means of raising revenue. The fair market value of property is not a bad index of the ability to pay. Compare this to the federal income tax, which has become so complex as to be a bizarre means of allocating the cost of government, with very little intuitive connection to taxpaying ability.
Taxes should be neutral, and ideally not affect economic behavior. When taxpayers change their actions to avoid tax, they are worse off and the government has lost revenue at the same time. The hidden costs of these changes include higher prices and lower wages. The land portion of the property tax is one of the few taxes that does not distort economic activity, and that’s an extremely valuable tool for public finance.
The property tax offers support for local jurisdictions, self-government, and direct democracy. Local governments have a hard time imposing independent sales or income taxes if people can find a lower rate in the next city or town. Real estate is immovable property, and that’s a good base for a local tax.
The property tax is always under attack because it is highly visible. Almost no one knows how much sales tax they pay in a year, and for many people income taxes are withheld from their wages. But writing a large check for the property tax focuses taxpayer attention. That means controversy, but it also means accountability, and it allows local voters to decide whether their taxes are in line with the public services they receive. That’s almost impossible to judge at the state or federal level.
The property tax can always be improved, and that’s part of the important mission of the Lincoln Institute. But it needs supporters who can point to its strengths, and I’m always happy to take on that role.
Land Lines: What is the subject of your current research?
Chip Case: I am working on a paper with Robert Shiller about the effect of people’s expectations on the housing market in 1988 and during the period from 2003 to 2012. Shiller and I collected questionnaires from people who had purchased or sold a house at some point during those calendar years. We used more than 5,000 questionnaires to create a dataset that allows us to better understand the nature of the recent housing bubble and to pinpoint the beginning of shifts in expectations. It gives us a way to quantify and analyze various expectations about the housing market and to determine how those expectations play a role in decision making.
We can see, for example, that in 2005 the goal of owning a house began to fade from the American dream. This type of shift is culturally and economically significant. When it occurs in conjunction with the inertia of people’s expectations, we begin to see volatility in the housing market. And if the swing is strong enough, we also see that volatility may affect the national economy.
Since the price of a house includes all rights and resources tied to that piece of land, expectations about the market and access to future rights and resources play a role in determining the market value of the house. The market value in turn affects the amount of tax levied on the property. The relationship between market expectations and the property tax is complex; the research that Shiller and I are doing will provide some insight.
Land Lines: What do you anticipate will happen in the U.S. housing market going forward?
Chip Case: I am cautiously optimistic about the future of the housing market. The numbers seem to indicate that the housing sector is stabilizing and showing signs of slow but positive growth. The housing sector composes only about 6 percent of the country’s GDP, but it has been enormously important in the past. Its recovery would certainly help the economy come back from the devastating effects of the recession.
SHARE
The property tax is the most widely unpopular tax in America. States have responded to this public opposition by enacting a range of tax relief policies, especially for homeowners (Cabral and Hoxby 2012). Among the most commonly adopted programs are homestead exemptions and property tax credits; all but three states have at least one of these programs. But despite their broad use and their potentially large impact on the distribution of property tax burdens, there has been remarkably little data available on the tax savings generated by property tax exemptions and credits.
Two new resources, available through the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter, begin to fill this need. These tables provide information for each state on the share of homeowners eligible for these programs and the level of tax savings they receive, as well as an analysis of how eligibility and benefits vary across the income distribution (see box 1, p. 26). This article draws on these resources to provide the first national study of property tax exemptions and credits with estimates of tax savings from these programs. With this information, policy makers have a critical tool to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of their property tax relief programs.
————————
Box 1: State-by-State Details on Property Tax Exemptions and Credits
The Significant Features of the Property Tax sub-center provides three key resources with information on property tax exemptions and credits in all 50 states; it is accessible at www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax.
Tax Savings from Property Tax Exemptions and Credits
This online Excel file includes estimates of tax savings from programs in individual states (see abbreviated example below), plus overview tables that make it easy to compare across states. For each program, the file provides estimates of the number of eligible homeowners and the median benefit, as well as a distributional analysis by income quintile. This is the first time that detailed data are available for most of these programs.
Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits
This online Excel file includes a set of tables for 167 programs displaying the value of exemptions expressed in terms of market value; criteria related to age, disability, income, and veteran status; the type of taxes affected (i.e., school or county taxes); whether the tax loss is borne by state or local governments; local options; and more. The summary table makes it easy to conduct quantitative analysis of these programs or make quick state-by-state comparisons. The information in these tables was used to generate the tax savings estimates.
Residential Property Tax Relief
This section of the Significant Features website includes detailed descriptions of property tax exemptions and credits, which were used to create the online Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits. It also describes other types of property tax relief, such as circuit breakers and tax deferral programs.
Notes: Total tax savings from the Senior and Disabled Property Tax Homestead Exemption ($392M) is less than the combined total of the programs for Seniors ($378M) and the Disabled ($22M), because homeowners who are 65+ and disabled cannot claim the exemption twice. The online Summary Table shows that the Senior and Disabled Exemption is a $25,000 exemption for homeowners who are 65+ or disabled; the two Rollback programs are percentage exemptions of 2.5% and 10% for all owner-occupied residences. Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2015).
————————
How Property Tax Exemptions and Credits Work
Property tax relief programs come in a variety of forms. Homestead exemptions reduce the amount of property value subject to taxation, either by a fixed dollar amount or by a percentage of home value. Property tax credits, in contrast, directly reduce the homeowner’s tax bill by a fixed dollar amount or certain percentage.
As table 1 illustrates, programs designed to provide identical benefits to owners of $200,000 homes have widely different impacts on homeowners with higher- and lower-valued properties. Given a 1% tax rate, a $20,000 flat dollar exemption reduces property taxes for each homeowner by $200 ($20,000 x 1%). This program has a progressive impact on the property tax distribution because lower-income households tend to have less valuable homes, and the exemption represents a larger share of their home values. In this case, the $20,000 exemption reduces property taxes by 20% on the $100,000 home, 10% on the $200,000 home, and 5% on the $400,000 home.
A percentage exemption, in contrast, provides the same percentage reduction in taxes for all three homeowners—in this example, 10%. In dollar terms, however, percentage exemptions favor owners with higher-valued homes: a 10% across-the-board reduction lowers property taxes by only $100 on the $100,000 home but $400 on the $400,000 home.
In the case of flat dollar credits, homeowners with lower-valued homes usually receive the largest tax cuts in percentage terms. In contrast, the percentage tax credit again provides the owner of the $400,000 home the largest tax cut in dollar terms.
An important feature of property tax exemptions and percentage credits is that the dollar reduction (but not the percentage reduction) in taxes increases with tax rates. For instance, if the homes in table 1 were subject to a 2% tax rate, the dollar savings to their owners would double under the $20,000 exemption, 10% exemption, and 10% credit. While the dollar savings from flat dollar credits do not vary with tax rates, the percentage savings to homeowners decrease as tax rates rise.
Critical Features of Exemptions and Credits
The design of homestead exemption and property tax credit programs varies significantly across the 50 states. Figure 1 (p. 28) summarizes the number and share of state programs with the following key characteristics.
Benefit Calculation
Perhaps the most important feature of property tax relief programs is how benefits are calculated. In 2012, 59% of state programs provided flat dollar exemptions, 19% provided percentage exemptions, and the final fifth used property tax credits or other more complicated formulas to determine the amount of tax relief for each homeowner.
While the programs work in similar ways, their effects differ dramatically. As the examples in table 1 show, flat dollar exemptions and credits make the property tax distribution more progressive, while percentage exemptions and credits do not. As a result, to provide a certain level of tax relief for the median homeowner, percentage exemptions are more expensive than other programs because they result in larger property tax cuts for owners of higher-valued homes. Instead of changing the distribution of property taxes among homeowners, percentage exemptions are primarily a way to shift the tax burden away from homeowners as a group to businesses, renters, and owners of second homes.
State vs. Local Funding
The ultimate impact of exemptions and credits on property tax bills depends on how the programs are funded. Figure 1 shows that in 2012 only 28% of these programs included full state reimbursement to cover local revenue losses, while 57% had local governments bear revenue losses on their own. For 15% of programs, state and local governments shared the revenue loss in some way. (Broad-based programs for all homeowners or all seniors are more likely to receive state funding than programs for smaller groups such as veterans or the disabled. In 2012, 43% of tax relief programs for all homeowners or seniors were state-funded, 48% were locally-funded, and the rest split the revenue loss [Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2014].)
The primary argument in favor of state funding of property tax exemptions and credits is that it can help mitigate disparities in property wealth across localities. Poorer communities and those without a significant business tax base typically have higher property tax rates, and these communities receive more funds per homeowner under state-funded programs. Without this assistance, communities with higher tax rates will experience larger revenue losses from tax relief programs unless they increase tax rates even further.
Seniors vs. All Age Groups
A number of states provide property tax relief for seniors. In 2012, more than a third favored seniors in some way: seven had statewide programs solely for this group, while 11 also covered younger homeowners but provided higher benefits for older homeowners. Other states provided either the same level of benefits for homeowners of all ages (15 states) or did not have broad-based programs (18 states).
Common arguments for targeting senior homeowners is that property taxes account for a larger share of their incomes, and local governments spend less on seniors than on younger homeowners with school-aged children. While it is true that property taxes account for a larger share of income for seniors than for working-age homeowners, the two groups devote nearly identical shares of their incomes to total housing costs because seniors are far less likely to have mortgages (Bowman et al. 2009, 11). In addition, property taxes are payments for public services, not user fees (Kenyon 2007, 36). Younger households without children in public schools do not benefit from property tax relief under these programs. The preferential tax treatment of seniors may simply reflect the fact that older households are a politically powerful group that votes in high numbers.
Estimating the Benefits of Exemptions and Credits
To estimate tax savings from homestead exemptions and property tax credits, the first step was to create the online Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits, which describes the key features of each program (see box 1 for description). These data draw almost entirely from the Residential Property Tax Relief Programs section of the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax database.
The second step was to combine this information with household-level data from the 2008–2012 American Community Survey (ACS). This nationally representative survey has data on more than 6.5 million U.S. households, including the household characteristics that determine program eligibility (age, income, disability, veteran status, etc.) and level of benefits received (home values and property tax bills). For a full explanation of the methodology used to estimate tax savings from exemptions and credits, see Langley (2015).
It is important to note that the estimates reported here are gross property tax savings. Tax relief programs often lead to higher property tax rates, especially under locally-funded programs where jurisdictions raise tax rates to offset the drop in the tax base from the exemptions. Estimates of net property tax savings would be lower in those communities, because the higher tax rates offset some of the direct tax relief provided from exemptions and credits.
Figure 2 shows that total property tax relief from homestead exemptions and property tax credits varies widely across states, but is generally small relative to total property tax revenues. In 14 of the 45 states with these programs, total savings are less than 0.5% of property tax revenues; in 27 states, the savings are less than 2.5%. At the same time, though, tax savings in nine states equal or exceed 10% of total property tax revenues. Indiana’s program is particularly generous, offering all homeowners a $45,000 exemption, then an additional 35% exemption for the first $600,000 in assessed value and a 25% exemption for value above $600,000.
Tax Savings for Different Types of Programs
Most states have more than one property tax exemption or credit program, with different programs targeting different groups of taxpayers—typically all homeowners, seniors, veterans, or the disabled. Figure 3 presents estimates on the share of homeowners eligible for these programs, along with the level of tax savings they receive.
Homeowners
Programs in 26 states are for nearly all homeowners, but usually limited to owner-occupied primary residences. In the typical state with these programs, the median homeowner receives a 12.5% cut in property taxes. On the high end, however, the median property tax cut was at least 25% in more than a quarter of states with these programs.
Seniors
Property tax relief programs in 18 states target older homeowners (typically at least age 65). These programs are much more generous than those covering all homeowners, with a median tax reduction of nearly 30% in the typical state. More than half of these programs provide a median tax cut of at least 25%, while only a sixth of them provide a median tax savings of less than 10%.
In the median state, 19.6% of homeowners are eligible for the programs, but eligibility rates vary greatly across states depending on whether there is an income ceiling. In the seven states that provide property tax relief to seniors regardless of income, 25–30% of homeowners are typically eligible. But in seven states with low income cutoffs ($10,000 to $30,000), only 5–10% of homeowners qualify. The other four states with property tax relief programs for seniors do not fit neatly into these two categories because they have higher income ceilings, strict wealth limits, or other eligibility criteria.
Veterans
State programs for veterans are more common than for any other group of homeowners, although eligibility is often limited to those who are disabled. Indeed, only 10 states provide property tax exemptions or credits for all veterans, even those without disabilities. In the median state with these programs, the typical beneficiary receives a property tax cut of just 3.2%.
There are 31 states that provide property tax exemptions or credits to veterans with service-connected disabilities. Because of the disability requirement, most veterans are ineligible for the programs. Indeed, only 15% of veterans qualify in the typical state. Overall, just 0.6% of homeowners are eligible for these programs in the median state.
Moreover, most of the 31 programs base eligibility and benefit levels on disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Just seven states have programs for all partially disabled veterans, and veterans with lower disability ratings typically receive modest tax savings. On the other hand, 18 states restrict eligibility to veterans who are permanently and totally disabled. These programs benefit a very small share of veterans, but they usually provide a full 100% exemption.
Disabled
Programs in 23 states cover disabled homeowners, but really target two distinct groups: disabled homeowners and blind homeowners. In 2012, 12 states had programs for disabled homeowners, seven states had programs for the blind, and five states covered both groups. Programs for the disabled typically require beneficiaries to be permanently and totally disabled, but exact criteria vary. In the median state, 2.3% of homeowners are eligible for these programs and they receive a median property tax cut of 21%.
Conclusion
Homestead exemptions and property tax credits are an important part of the property tax system. These programs are used in nearly all states and can make the distribution of property taxes significantly more progressive. It is therefore critical that policymakers have good data on the property tax relief that these programs actually provide.
New research makes this information available for the first time. Using the Lincoln Institute’s Significant Features of the Property Tax subcenter, policymakers can easily compare key features of property tax exemption and credit programs across states, and see estimates of eligibility and tax savings. These data make it possible to evaluate the impacts of property tax exemptions and credits in their particular states as well as find ideas for program improvements.
Adam H. Langley is Senior Research Analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Special thanks go to Andrew Reschovsky, who provided extensive comments on this article and other related papers.
References
Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. Property Tax Circuit Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Cabral, Marika, and Caroline Hoxby. 2012. “The Hated Property Tax: Salience, Tax Rates, and Tax Revolts.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper 18514. November.
Kenyon, Daphne A. 2007. The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Langley, Adam H. 2015. “Estimating Tax Savings from Homestead Exemptions and Property Tax Credits.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2014. Significant Features of the Property Tax. Residential Property Tax Relief Programs: Summary Table on Exemptions and Credits in 2012. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Residential_Property_Tax_Relief_Programs.aspx
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2015. Significant Features of the Property Tax. Tax Savings from Property Tax Exemptions and Credits in 2012. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Residential_Property_Tax_Relief_Programs.aspx
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute has supported the authors’ work on property taxation in South Africa for several years, and in February 2002 the Institute published Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Edited by Bell and Bowman, the book presents major portions of their own work, together with chapters by several of their colleagues in the U.S. and in South Africa. This article provides an overview of seminars on property tax issues conducted by Bell and Bowman in South Africa in March 2002.
The end of apartheid in South Africa nearly a decade ago presented new opportunities and challenges to every aspect of national life, including fiscal issues. The government faced the task of extending the property tax to previously untaxed areas and adapting it to provide services through a set of radically restructured local governments. The final reorganization of local government took effect in December 2000, and the new governments now must develop comprehensive property tax (rates) policies.
Several key pieces of apartheid-era legislation had established the spatial basis for racial separation:
These policies greatly complicated efforts to amalgamate former white and black local authorities (WLAs and BLAs), with important implications for property taxation. Specifically, for local governments, the legacy of apartheid includes:
Post-Apartheid Local Government Structure
The dismantling of apartheid began in the mid-1980s and was essentially complete by the early 1990s. At the end of 1993, the Local Government Transition Act (LGTA) was signed by then-President de Klerk and, symbolically, by Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress (ANC). The LGTA provided for short-, medium- and long-term transformation of local governments to create nonracial self-government. It created two-tier local governments in metropolitan areas, with powers and responsibilities shared between a geographically larger unit and two or more smaller units within the same area. The Municipal Structures Act of 1998, providing for single-tier metropolitan government, was implemented after the local elections of December 2000 as part of a general and final redemarcation of local governments that reduced the number of authorities from approximately 845 to less than 300.
Amalgamation of municipalities brought new areas into the property tax base, including former BLAs, bantustans and their associated rural R293 towns, but the residents of these newly incorporated areas had never before paid property taxes. Thus, it was necessary to develop the information and administrative infrastructure needed to value properties, determine tax liabilities, distribute tax bills to those responsible, and collect the taxes due, all in an equitable manner. Moreover, the new tax system had to overcome the psychology of payment boycotts, sometimes characterized as a “culture of nonpayment,” an important resistance technique used against the apartheid government.
Combining formerly taxed areas with different valuation rates or systems into a single municipality produces inconsistencies within the property tax roll of the amalgamated area, multiplying inequities among property owners with different effective tax rates. Both those new to the tax and those who historically have paid property taxes often question whether their tax shares are equitable and how the resulting revenue is being spent. In some instances, tax boycotts have occurred in former WLAs.
National Property Tax Policy
Although property taxation remains a local tax in South Africa, the 1996 Constitution authorizes central government regulation of property taxation. A national Property Rates Bill, scheduled for adoption in 2002, will replace current provincial property tax laws. Each locality now must adopt an explicit and comprehensive property rates policy.
Our seminars took place in this context of national legislation, municipal consolidation and municipal property rates policies. We collaborated with local institutions of higher education: Port Elizabeth Technikon in Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and the University of North West in Mafikeng Local Municipality. Seminar participants included current and former elected city councilors, newly enfranchised and long-time non-elected officials, and students and faculty of the educational institutions.
Nelson Mandela Municipality is one of South Africa’s six metropolitan municipal governments, the only local government within its geographic area. Its population and business center is the former city of Port Elizabeth. Principal property tax concerns raised at the seminar included: (1) unifying the tax rolls of the various jurisdictions making up the metropolitan area, since their valuation dates range over a number of years; (2) bringing former black local authority (BLA) areas into the property tax base; (3) deciding on the appropriate way to deal with rural (agricultural) land, previously not taxed but now part of the municipal area; and (4) accomplishing these things in a manner that is sensitive to the special circumstances of those with very low incomes.
Mafikeng, the capital of the North West Province, lies within the Mmbatho District Municipality in the former Bophuthatswana homeland near the Botswana border. Some property tax concerns raised at the Mafikeng seminar were the same as in Nelson Mandela Municipality. In addition, Mafikeng is wrestling with incorporating tribal (traditional authority) areas and the black urban agglomerations (R293 towns) of the former bantustan. Tribal areas present two special problems: property ownership is communal, not private; and the traditional authority structure remains in place, even though these areas now are included within municipal borders, creating a dual authority structure that further complicates amalgamation.
Key Property Taxation Themes
Policy Framework
New national legislation requires each local government to produce a property rates policy to address such issues as whether to include all real properties in the tax base; whether to apply uniform or differential rates to the many categories of property included in the tax base; and what form of property relief should be given, and to whom. If the property tax is to be a viable local revenue source, local rates policies must be guided by the following principles:
These fundamental characteristics of a property tax system provide a framework for restructuring property taxes in South Africa, with tradeoffs made through an open and transparent political process at the local level.
Monitoring
The property tax base is fair market value. Because most properties do not sell in a market transaction each year, however, estimating market value is the task of trained assessment professionals. Differences in location, depreciation and other characteristics make valuation partly an art, not strictly a scientific or technical endeavor. Uniformity relative to market value may not always result, even though it is required and the assessors follow the procedures intended to achieve that result. Thus, a system for monitoring valuation outcomes is needed, which may include three dimensions of assessment quality:
Formal assessment/sales ratio studies have not been done in South Africa, but we calculated simple ratios for several cities. The results in Table 1 indicate that assessment uniformity generally needs to be improved, since coefficients of dispersion across the case study cities are typically high and the price-related differentials are generally substantially above one.
Targeting Tax Relief
Although property taxation is a tax on value, it is paid out of current income, and thus may place an unacceptable burden on property owners with low incomes. Property tax relief is any reduction in tax liability. Indirect relief results from changes that take pressure off the property tax: reduced expenditures or increased revenue from alternative sources. Alternatively, direct relief comes from a change in the calculation of property tax liability.
Direct relief was the focus of our studies and the seminar discussions. In South Africa direct residential property tax relief typically is a uniform percentage credit, termed a rebate, which generally is 20 percent or 25 percent of gross property tax liability. The rebate approach has two limitations. First, most of the tax relief goes to those with the most expensive properties. Second, low-income property owners are still required to pay most of their property tax liability, which still could be burdensome relative to income.
While an income-based circuit breaker is our preferred approach for targeting tax relief to those in need, it would be extremely difficult to administer in South Africa because income information is not readily available, in part because of the extensive informal economy. An alternative way to target property tax relief to those most in need is to exempt a fixed amount of the base from taxation.
Table 2 illustrates the effects of moving from a 25 percent rebate to a R20,000 exemption (US$1,740). Under the partial exemption alternative, the lowest valued properties, including those hardest to value at this time, are removed from paying taxes, and net taxes are reduced on all properties up to about R100,000 (US$8,700). The aggregate cost of property tax relief under this approach is substantially reduced because each property receives the same exemption. Durban and Johannesburg now are experimenting with the partial exemption approach to property tax relief.
Dealing with Previously Untaxed Areas
As a result of the local government restructuring in December 2000, South Africa now has local governments throughout country. Three types of areas previously outside the property tax now are to be brought into the tax: former BLAs and R293 townships, agricultural areas and tribal areas. In the former BLAs and R293 townships property is being transferred to private ownership and these areas must be surveyed by the national Surveyor General to establish individual property boundaries and identifications necessary to administer the property tax. Different localities are at different stages in this process.
Property taxes were levied on rural agricultural lands in the past, but these lands have not been in the property tax base since the late 1980s. Bringing them into the tax base now poses two problems. The first is developing the property record information necessary for tax administration. The second is the question of how taxes on such properties should relate to taxes levied in the urban portions of a municipality, as farmers often provide themselves and their workers with services typically associated with local government. One possibility is use-value assessment of agricultural land, an approach endorsed by a national commission that reviewed the taxation of rural lands. Alternatively, differential rates for different categories of property are allowed under current provincial property tax laws and the draft national Property Rates Bill. If there is to be differentiation in effective tax rates, imposing a lower rate on market value assessments provides greater transparency and understanding of the tax and should be part of the local government rates policy.
Bringing tribal areas into the tax base presents another set of issues. First, given communal land tenure systems existing in these traditional authority areas, how does one establish ownership, a necessary condition for the application of property tax based on the principle of private property? Second, because there is no land market per se, how are estimates of market value to be made? Finally, given the two competing governance structures that now exist in tribal areas, how does one make the payment of a property tax acceptable to residents who did not previously pay the tax? These issues are clearly the most intractable ones that must be addressed in the newest round of local government reform in South Africa.
Conclusion
The property tax has been an important part of local finance in South Africa for centuries and is likely to play an increasingly important role in the future, as newly amalgamated local governments wrestle with addressing the legacies of apartheid and the requirements of new national property tax legislation. There is no single right answer to many of the perplexing questions surrounding the design and implementation of a local property tax, but it will continue to evolve to meet changing circumstances and needs.
Michael E. Bell is president of MEB Associates, Inc., in McHenry, Maryland. John H. Bowman is professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.
References
Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman. 2002. Property Taxes in South Africa: Challenges in the Post-Apartheid Era. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 3 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
La demanda por servicios urbanos sobrepasa la capacidad financiera de la mayoría de las ciudades del mundo. Para hacerle frente a este problema, muchos gobiernos municipales utilizan exitosamente el impuesto a la propiedad junto con otros instrumentos administrativos a fin de recaudar esos fondos tan necesarios. Actualmente El Salvador es el único país centroamericano que no impone una tributación sobre suelo y propiedad. Sin embargo, funcionarios públicos, expertos académicos y líderes empresariales del país han comenzado a discutir sobre la necesidad de establecer un sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, y las estrategias para su ejecución.
El sistema de tributación de El Salvador está caracterizado por la falta de equidad y una cantidad mínima de impuestos recaudados, lo cual afecta el nivel de inversiones públicas. Décadas de guerra civil y caos económico han dejado al país sin una tradición establecida de administración ni control fiscal. Los primeros cambios al sistema de tributación comenzaron a ponerse en práctica en 1993, cuando tanto el antiguo impuesto patrimonial sobre la propiedad personal y de la empresa (incluso sobre bienes inmuebles), como el impuesto sobre las ventas del 5 % fueron abolidos y sustituidos por un impuesto sobre las ventas del 13 por ciento. La recaudación de estos impuestos y de un impuesto sobre la renta corre a cargo del gobierno central.
El único impuesto municipal que existe es un tributo arcaico y complejo basado en actividades comerciales, industriales, financieras y de servicios. Debido a su limitada capacidad para aumentar sus ingresos, los municipios no tienen muchas oportunidades de obtener préstamos de bancos nacionales, y ninguna posibilidad de conseguirlos de instituciones financieras internacionales. Entre otros factores que contribuyen a debilitar la base financiera de los gobiernos municipales se cuentan las deficiencias administrativas, los problemas catastrales y las limitaciones del marco legal. Dado que la zona metropolitana de San Salvador abarca una gran área de este pequeño país, la tributación municipal y otros programas de planificación fiscal puestos en práctica allí tienen repercusiones significativas en todo el país.
En 1998, el Consejo Municipal de San Salvador propuso aumentar los impuestos a la actividad comercial, lo cual provocó protestas inmediatas por parte de representantes empresariales y funcionarios municipales. Los líderes de negocios denunciaron al programa tributario propuesto como un generador de costos adicionales que los forzaría a subir los precios de artículos de consumo y servicios, y posiblemente llevaría a un crecimiento de la inflación; como alternativa, demandaron incentivos para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo a cambio de modificaciones del sistema tributario. El Consejo Municipal defendió su propuesta, precisando que la estructura tributaria actual se caracterizaba por una seria falta de equidad porque castigaba a los negocios pequeños al mismo tiempo que ofrecía ventajas a los grandes.
El Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y la Cámara de Comercio e Industria de El Salvador formaron una comisión mixta para que investigara los complejos asuntos involucrados en la reforma fiscal propuesta y las precondiciones que la misma precisaría, tales como actualizaciones catastrales, marco legal y capacitación técnica. Si bien la discusión no estuvo centrada en los mecanismos concretos para llevar a cabo una tributación de suelo y propiedad, fue muy significativo que estos importantes grupos de interés coincidieran sobre la necesidad de imponer un tributo inmobiliario en el futuro.
Beneficios de una perspectiva internacional
En enero de 1999 se realizó una reunión extraordinaria de funcionarios públicos y grupos de interés privado, en la que el Instituto Lincoln y la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS) estudiaron muchos de los asuntos pertinentes al desarrollo y ejecución de un sistema de tributación inmobiliaria. Éste fue el tercero de una serie de programas auspiciados por el Instituto diseñados con el objetivo de compartir la experiencia internacional y ayudar a desarrollar un nuevo marco de trabajo en pro de un sistema tributario con más equidad en El Salvador.
Particularmente en un país pequeño como El Salvador, la implementación de un sistema adecuado de impuestos a la propiedad puede tener efectos positivos y estratégicos no sólo sobre las finanzas municipales, sino también sobre las políticas macroeconómicas y la revaluación del sector financiero. Alven Lam, investigador del Instituto Lincoln, explicó que la reestructuración del marco tributario ha sido el factor fundamental que ha permitido a algunos países asiáticos como Japón, Tailandia e Indonesia, recuperarse de sus crisis económicas. Los recientes problemas fiscales de Brasil y el continuo debate sobre el funcionamiento del sector financiero de El Salvador agregaron un sentido de apremio a la discusión sobre el amplio contexto económico de un impuesto a la propiedad municipal.
En el seminario también se discutió la importancia de integrar una tributación mixta de suelo y propiedad como herramienta fundamental para promover un manejo eficaz de la tierra urbana. Vincent Renard, del Laboratorio Econométrico de la Escuela Politécnica de París, elogió la iniciativa del Consejo Municipal de San Salvador y de otros gobiernos municipales para modificar sus estructuras tributarias, haciendo énfasis en la importancia de no aislar dichas políticas de los mercados de bienes raíces. Asimismo, Renard criticó ciertas estrategias de planificación urbana, tales como la tendencia actual que hay en El Salvador de regularizar en exceso el uso de la tierra mediante medidas legales que están totalmente desvinculadas de la tributación de la tierra y de incentivos fiscales.
Una tercera área de preocupación durante el debate consistió en las implicaciones políticas y económicas de la tributación a la propiedad. Entre otras cosas, es crítico que los funcionarios involucrados en establecer un sistema de tributación sobre la propiedad consideren la cultura política de la sociedad, la consolidación de autonomía municipal, la transparencia de los mercados de bienes raíces, y el uso del impuesto a la propiedad como una herramienta para el desarrollo económico y social. Julio Piza, de la Universidad Externado de Bogotá, describió diferentes aplicaciones del impuesto a la propiedad en Colombia, realzando la existencia de un problema común: la dificultad de medir la base impositiva de la tierra y los bienes debido en gran parte a los obsoletos sistemas catastrales y a la falta de otros sistemas de información.
Aunque la discusión sobre la reforma fiscal en El Salvador ha sido eclipsada por las recientes elecciones nacionales, el nuevo presidente ha expresado interés en una política de tierra y tributo. Al seminario asistieron dirigentes municipales y nacionales de los sectores políticos y comerciales, quienes expresaron un interés profundo en modernizar sus programas de manejo fiscal y tributación municipal. El solo hecho de haberse reunido para discutir abiertamente estos complejos asuntos es una señal esperanzadora. Para que haya progreso, es necesario contar con la voluntad política, la participación continua de la comunidad comercial y el reconocimiento de que el impuesto constituye tanto un instrumento financiero práctico para satisfacer necesidades inmediatas como también una herramienta importante para lograr crecimiento económico y desarrollo urbano.
Al igual que otros países en estado de transición social y económica, El Salvador se enfrenta ahora al desafío de establecer estipulaciones eficaces y justas para llevar a cabo las valuaciones catastrales y la recaudación de impuestos. El proceso puede facilitarse si se comienza con una estructura de tasas simple y se van introduciendo gradualmente instrumentos más sofisticados. Otros factores tales como métodos innovadores de manejo de la tierra y la posibilidad de capturar los aumentos en el valor de la tierra son críticos para el futuro crecimiento fiscal de El Salvador.
Ingresos municipales Área Metropolitana de San Salvador, 1993
Fuentes de ingresos:
Patricia Fuentes es Subdirectora de Control de Desarrollo Urbano y Mario Lungo es el Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (OPAMSS).
SHARE
Claudia De Cesare is a property tax adviser to the Secretariat of Finance for the municipality of Porto Alegre, Brazil, and she teaches courses on valuation and property taxation in the postgraduate program of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre. She has been a course developer and instructor in the Lincoln Institute’s Latin America Program for more than five years. She is also a member of the advisory board of the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) and is the former technical director of the Brazilian Appraisal Institute (IBAPE).
Land Lines: Porto Alegre is known internationally for its innovative and democratic local administration. What is unique about this city compared to others in Brazil or Latin America?
Claudia De Cesare: Indeed, Porto Alegre has initiated many pioneering actions in public administration, including the use of the property tax as an instrument for value capture; the sale of building rights (solo criado); the use of building rights in place of cash to pay for expropriations of real property; and the collection of rents in exchange for the use of public space by infrastructure networks, such as telecommunications, cable TV and gas. For instance, five years before the approval of the national City Statute legislation regulating the use of progressive rates for the property tax, Porto Alegre passed local legislation to address this matter. Although the Supreme Court later ruled against this local action and in favor of the need for national legislation, the city has played a leading role in promoting debate on many polemic issues, including private rights, property rights and the public interest.
I think the reasons for Porto Alegre’s innovations include a clear definition of the policies and goals to be achieved, as well as “guts” by local leaders to tackle issues even when conflict is likely to occur. Public officials have maintained an overriding vision that the city must be planned democratically for the community at large and a conviction that public assets must be taken seriously. Not all initiatives have succeeded, but citizens now have a better understanding of the local government’s responsibilities and its limitations. The fact that one political party, in this case the labor party (PT), was elected to lead the city government for more than 15 consecutive years also contributed to the continuity and coherence of these public actions. This kind of political legacy is quite unusual in Brazil and Latin America in general.
LL: How has this proactive atmosphere affected the administration of the property tax?
CD: We can identify two periods in terms of property tax performance in Porto Alegre. Before 1989, local revenue from the property tax followed the typical pattern in Latin America. It was mainly symbolic, characterized by a low level of effort in administration, negligence in local tax collection, and extreme dependence on revenue transfers from the national and state levels. Following major property tax reforms that revised exemption policies, introduced progressive rates and established a new assessment list, the property tax collection rate grew more than 300 percent over the first two years. A major public education campaign emphasized the arguments for regular property tax payments, the importance of the tax for the provision of public services, and the reasons why the local authorities would not tolerate tax evasion.
A change in attitude by the city administration also led to more effective enforcement of property tax payments and legal actions to address tax evasion or disputes over assessed values. It was made clear there would be no amnesty for property tax debts. The participatory budget process also contributed to the rehabilitation of the property tax in Porto Alegre, as overall confidence in public administration increased (see Goldsmith and Vanier 2001). Since the early 1990s, the annual revenue collected from the property tax has been stable, representing nearly 0.95 percent of local GDP. At the national level, by comparison, the property tax represents only about 0.5 percent of GDP. Subsequent improvements in the property tax have not taken place, basically because the legislature has rejected several proposals for either reforms or major revisions.
LL: How important is the property tax in Latin America?
CD: Although the simple answer to this question is “it depends on the country,” the property tax is not a significant revenue source in any Latin American country, even though most countries have long established property tax systems. Only in Argentina and Uruguay does the revenue collected from the property tax represent more than 1 percent of GDP. In Brazil the average performance is close to 0.5 percent, and in Mexico and Costa Rica it is around 0.3 percent of the GPD. Moreover, in relative terms, there is great variability in the importance of the property tax within countries and cities that is not directly explained by the local GDP or population size. Part of the performance depends on political will, which varies enormously among cities.
LL: In your opinion, what are the main controversies related to property tax collection?
CD: I would say that the controversies include the real goals to be achieved with the property tax; the degree of universality in its implementation; the changes needed to take into account social, economic and cultural concerns; and the distribution of the tax burden for regulating the tax according to ability to pay. Concerning ability to pay, principally in Brazil, there is much discussion about application of progressive rates that vary according to assessed values. The underlying issue might be how simple the system should be.
Other issues have to do with the lack of consensus about the transparency of the system, local autonomy versus a national system for tax collection, and general political and economic instability that affects property value maps and other data. Furthermore, the public disclosure of information on the property tax, such as individual property characteristics, assessed values and annual tax payments, is not always considered secure.
LL: What would it take to improve property tax collection?
CD: In my experience, the successful performance of the property tax depends on a combination of adequate fiscal policies, a consistent legal framework for tax collection and an efficient administrative structure. For instance, the application of confiscatory (high) rates to vacant sites to promote land development is likely to stimulate tax evasion instead. In addition, political will and the capacity for negotiation with stakeholders are essential for the introduction of reforms or revisions in tax administration. Making the connection between public services and revenue collected from the property tax more evident to taxpayers is likely to contribute to a better collection rate. In other words, the role of the property tax would be enhanced if the community is accustomed to paying the property tax and understands its effect on improving public services. Finally, a trend toward a participatory fiscal culture, in which the community takes part in the decisions about public revenue collection and expenditures, could increase the acceptability of the tax, making its collection easier.
LL: What is changing in the region to influence the prospects for tax reform?
CD: I believe tax administrators understand and care more today about the property tax. They are aware of the pressing need to increase revenues through better performance of the tax, in spite of challenges due to its high visibility and historically poor performance record. They also recognize the need to break this paradigm, in relation to both taxpayer expectations and the role of the property tax as a component of the national taxation system. Several isolated yet promising experiences have made it clear that property tax reform in Latin America is viable, but it requires political will, innovation and a commitment to overcome perceived barriers to its implementation.
LL: What are the main differences in the property tax environment of Latin America compared to North America?
CD: The U.S. and Canadian systems are certainly more mature and transparent than most Latin American systems, largely because information is available in the public domain and technology is easily accessible. Some of the important differences observed in Latin America are illegal occupation patterns, the lack of reliable information on land tenure, the large number of informal property transactions and the prevalence of progressive housing construction. All of these characteristics of Latin American land use present distinct challenges to developing procedures to assess property values and administer a fair and consistent tax policy. Concerning the use of technology in the administration of the property tax, last year I learned about a cadastral system in Mexico that is as effective as the best systems used in the U.S. However, this is unusual; there is great variation in the use of technology among different local authorities in Latin America.
LL: Based on your research, what are some of the positive and negative impacts of switching to a land value-based tax system for residential properties?
CD: The conclusion of my study was quite unexpected, since the hypothesis supported the opposite argument. Using a database from Porto Alegre, I found that the main result from using land value as the tax base was the tendency toward more regressivity in the distribution of the tax burden, with low-priced houses clearly identified as the potential losers. The fact that part of the tax burden would be transferred from high-priced to low-priced properties is a real cause of concern. However, further investigation is necessary to address imperfections in the valuation model used to estimate land values and to examine other databases. In any event, the lack of knowledge about the use of land value as the tax base and its perceived advantages was identified as a major obstacle for its application in Brazil.
LL: How do you use various assessment tools and techniques to determine land value?
CD: One of the main arguments against the use of land value as the tax base is the great difficulty in estimating the value of improved sites. In my study, the use of hedonic models (MRA) for estimating land values was found to be viable. To compensate for the lack of data on undeveloped sites in highly developed areas (central areas and business districts), I used a reasonable number of houses that were sold for new development. Their market value was determined entirely by the potential of the site for future development, as well as by the neighborhood characteristics. Therefore, the findings support the hypothesis that eventual difficulties in land assessment do not prevent the use of land value as the property tax base, at least, in the case of Porto Alegre. Nevertheless, a lower degree of assessment uniformity was observed in the valuation of undeveloped sites, since site prices tend to suffer strong random variations and are highly influenced by the particular characteristics of the buyer and seller involved in each transaction.
LL: What do you think are the greatest challenges facing Latin America in the next five years?
CD: As discussed before, a major challenge is to pursue more effective property tax systems. I think the promotion and implementation of national programs for the improvement of the property tax is essential to reinforce the property tax at the local level. On a more personal note, my goal is to develop a web-based system for collecting and disseminating information on property taxes in Latin America, allowing comparative analyses among municipalities according to predefined criteria. The system would have property tax administrators fill out data on the performance of the property tax on a regular basis, allowing for evaluation over time. This would greatly advance the project, now being supported by the Lincoln Institute, which uses conventional questionnaires to survey property tax information in the region.
Reference
Goldsmith, William W. and Carlos B. Vainer. 2001. Participatory budgeting and power politics in Porto Alegre. Land Lines 13 (1): 7–9.
Rampant informality, so emblematic of large cities in developing countries, poses many challenges for property taxation systems. For instance, tenure rights in informal settlements are often obscure or even unknown; buildings are constructed gradually over time, self-construction is common, and the whole unit may never be finished; property value depends on vague or intangible factors such as the security provided by community organizations; the occupant or even the legal owner may be too poor to pay taxes; administrative costs of tax collection are higher than in the formal areas, whereas assessed values are often much lower; and there is hardly any public investment in infrastructure and services.
These critical features of informal housing seem to violate many of the premises on which the administration of a property tax system is grounded: identification of taxable property and corresponding taxpayers; description of the property’s physical characteristics; determination of property values on a reasonable market basis and according to predictable measures; the taxpayer’s presumed ability to pay; collection costs that are relatively low compared to the revenue collected; and an expectation that tax revenues would benefit the area from which the tax was collected.
This comparison depicts the essence of the conventional wisdom on informal occupations and the reasons why they are generally disregarded for taxation purposes, but misconceptions and prejudices are evident. This article examines some of these biases and their consequences for property tax collection in informal areas. The Latin American situation is used to illustrate this debate, but this study is still exploratory due to limited data. The arguments discussed indicate promising directions for further analyses, rather than conclusive findings in most cases.
Informal Occupations
In land occupation and housing, informality is a multidimensional phenomenon involving thorny issues related to land tenure; noncompliance with urban norms and regulations, such as minimum lot size, allowance for public spaces, and street layouts; inadequate provision of public services and equipment; and occupation of improper areas, such as environmentally protected or ecologically risky areas and contaminated brownfield sites.
Slums originated by land invasions are the first image of informality that comes to mind, but other social and physical forms of informality range from pirate subdivisions, usually characterized by market sales of land having no clear title, to situations where even legally qualified owners with titled land do not conform to existing urban norms and regulations.
According to the United Nations–Habitat (2003), about 928 million people (32 percent of the world’s urban population or 43 percent of the population of developing countries) currently live in slums with precarious urban infrastructure and inadequate public services. If current trends and policies continue, the report estimates that slum populations will increase by 37 million per year to reach a total of 1.5 billion people in 2020. Although Latin America accounts for 9 percent of the world’s population, it comprises about 14 percent of those who live in slums.
Why is Informality a Problem?
Informality disorganizes the functioning of urban land markets, since illegal, irregular, and clandestine operators are able to reap higher profits by avoiding some costs, such as taxes, the cost of protecting the land from invasions, or the cost of providing basic urban infrastructure and services. Contrary to expectations, land prices per square meter in informal settlements are often higher than those in formal areas, when discounting investments related to the provision of water, electricity, drainage, sewerage, and other services.
Moreover, informality is expensive for society. The costs of curative policies to upgrade irregular settlements are higher than the cost of new land development, and indirect social costs include the presence of criminal activity and natural disasters caused by development in environmentally sensitive areas. The evidence also suggests that informality is both a cause and an effect of urban poverty. The geographic distribution of poverty tends to overlap with the spatial pattern of informal arrangements, although the magnitude and persistence of informality cannot be entirely explained by poverty. A survey conducted by the Instituto Pereira Passos (2002) based on the Brazilian Census of 2000 found that about 64 percent of the population classified as poor actually lived outside the slum areas.
Myths of Informality
There are many prevailing myths about how informal settlements are either established or operated, including the perception that occupants in informal areas are neither willing nor able to pay property taxes. In fact, not only are occupiers usually willing to pay the tax as a way to legitimate their land tenure, but they are often quite able to pay it. New occupants, in fact, have already paid the property tax in the form of higher land prices, yet the payment went to either the subdivider or original landowner instead of the government.
Moreover, payment of the property tax by occupants of informal areas is likely to legitimate their right to demand public services and other urban improvements from government authorities. Many informal occupants also realize that private provision of basic services through informal means, such as buying water from a truck, is likely to be more costly and risky than payment of the property tax.
Other myths or assumptions about informality include beliefs that occupants of informal settlements are necessarily poor; informal settlements are occupied only by unemployed and informal workers; formal property title is necessary to obtain access to credit; informal settlements are homogeneous entities clearly distinguished from formal settlements; and occupation of informal settlements is made through nonmarket transactions.
Property Tax Collection
In an attempt to relate property tax collection per inhabitant to the presence of informality, we used data based on a survey of municipalities conducted in 1999 by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE 2001). Table 1 presents data that measured two criteria: the occurrence of slums (i.e., informal settlements caused by invasions) and the existence of all types of irregular land development. Slums occur in 27.6 percent of all municipalities in Brazil, while irregular land development (including slums) occurs in almost 44 percent of them. The maximum value of property tax collected is higher in larger municipalities and those with slums and other irregular developments, and the revenues also tend to be higher on average than in those municipalities without such development.
However, Table 2 illustrates the difficulty of monitoring property ownership and tax collection records by comparing the presence of cadastres in municipalities with records on slums and informal settlements. Local cadastres cover information on slums in 52.5 percent of the municipalities in which they are found, but only 39 percent of those cities have complete records on informality. By comparison, 50.5 percent of municipalities with irregular land developments have this information included in their cadastres, and 51 percent of the cases with records have complete information. Thus, one cannot reject the hypothesis that the larger, richer, and more developed municipalities are also the ones with better records on informal occupations.
Using the IBGE database, a model for multiple regression analysis was developed to test the relationship between informality and the property tax collected per inhabitant. The relationship was controlled with other attributes available in the database, including the average income per inhabitant, the size of the population, and a group of variables associated with the role of the local administration in promoting urban development. Based on this model, which explains approximately 72 percent of the variation in the property tax collected per inhabitant, the following factors have proven to be influential in determining the amount of property tax collected.
In addition to the level of income, the findings clearly indicate the importance of an effective administration of the property tax. In other words, even in the presence of informality municipalities achieve better results in comparative terms if they maintain updated cadastres and maps, include informal properties in the cadastre, and have a broad framework of urban legislation. In summary, when focusing strictly on the property tax performance, the major cause of concern is not the presence of informality itself, but the way public officials deal with it for property tax purposes.
The Property Tax as a Tool to Reverse Informality
A more vigorous property tax is likely to affect informality directly. For instance, the portion of the property tax levied on land value constitutes a strong antidote to force the existing stock of serviced land to the market. The property tax may also be important as a tool to influence the decision-making process for which areas should receive urban services. Indeed, communities without a property tax system are particularly vulnerable when it comes to seeking public attention.
The property tax can also be an educational mechanism for helping citizens realize their rights and duties, including the need to contribute to public expenses. The government’s commitment to allocate tax revenues fairly and equitably provides greater legitimacy to the tax. Furthermore, a property tax may be one mechanism to reduce land prices through the capitalization effect (Bahl and Linn 1992). Usually local government recognition of occupancy has no direct, legal effect on guaranteeing property titles at the public registry, but informal occupiers may perceive it as a kind of a green card to access the legal world.
Rabello de Castro (2000) has argued that there are solid legal grounds to use cadastres for property tax purposes to legitimize tenure rights, and that the courts would have no difficulty in admitting such records as trustworthy evidence. Finally, there is an advantage for the property tax to cover informal property because its application requires specific knowledge of the area, which has immensurable value to the city management.
Policy Recommendations
Informality poses particular challenges to property tax administration, including the need to design feasible and politically acceptable procedures. Following are some policy recommendations for consideration.
Even though most informal property is excluded from the property rolls, the above requirements should be applied to informal properties if a higher level of efficiency in property tax collection is to be achieved. The argument about high collection costs to exclude low-valued properties (or low-income families for that matter) from the tax-rolls should be reckoned against the benefits of promoting broader fiscal citizenship.
A Longer View
The collection of property taxes in informal areas may be not only possible under certain circumstances, but also attractive for pursuing a more effective urban policy that is capable of mitigating informality and its negative effects for society in general and for individual occupants of these settlements in particular.
Despite the difficulty of providing empirical evidence on its theoretical impacts on the land market, the part of the property tax levied on the land value is likely to produce effects that are critical to mitigate the distortions and dysfunctions in land markets with a high degree of informality. These effects include stimulating land development; deterring land speculation; reducing land prices; increasing the supply of urbanized land; encouraging more compact cities; promoting more efficient provision of urban infrastructure and services; and encouraging a more rational pattern of development. Indirect benefits may include the relevance of the information generated to identify property, the use of paid property taxes as a paralegal means to legitimize tenure rights, and last but not least the opportunity for accessing citizenship and becoming integrated into society.
In summary, when focusing on the property tax performance, the major cause of concern is not so much informality itself, but the way public officials treat informality and how they administer a property tax system. In this context, the introduction of the property tax into an environment with rampant informality requires special caution. The challenges to operating the property tax in informal areas include the need to understand the informal market, curb intervening land ownership claims from previous or absent owners, improve administrative capability, and legitimize public actions that result in social benefits to the poor. In addition, public officials need to overcome prejudice and misconceptions regarding informality and introduce efficient property tax initiatives that may actually reduce informality.
About the Authors
Martim O. Smolka is senior fellow and director of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Claudia M. De Cesare is a property tax advisor to the Secretariat of Finance in the municipality of Porto Alegre, Brazil. She is on the advisory board of the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) and is a faculty member of the Lincoln Institute.
References
Abramo, Pedro. 2003. A teoria econômica da favela: quatro notas sobre a localização residencial dos pobres e o mercado imobiliário informal, in A cidade da informalidade: o desafio das cidades latino-americanas, Pedro Abramo (Org.). Rio de Janeiro: Librería Sette Letras, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Bahl, R.W., and Johannes F. Linn. 1992. Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries. Washington DC: Oxford University Press.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2001. Perfil dos municípios brasileiros: Pesquisa de informações básicas municipais, 1999. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
Instituto Pereira Passos. 2002. Evolução da população de favelas no Rio de Janeiro: Uma reflexão sobre os dados mais recentes. Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro. http://www.rio.rj.gov.br.
Rabello de Castro, S. 2000. Habitação: Direito e governança – Duas sugestões para ação governamental. Fundação João Ribeiro. Cadernos de Textos 2: 321–338.
UN–HABITAT. 2003. The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
SHARE
As the world’s most populous country and its third largest economy, China and its rapid urbanization and development will represent one of the defining trends of the twenty-first century. Over the past 30 years, China has made remarkable economic and social progress, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and catapulting China onto the international stage.
This economic transformation has also involved an institutional transformation as China’s centrally planned economy has moved pragmatically to a broad reliance on market mechanisms. This movement has been especially challenging in the case of land, which for decades was owned by the state or peasant collectives. Progress has been made in urban areas, where the leasehold term of land ownership is now normally 70 years, but in rural areas collective land ownership continues.
Despite its noteworthy accomplishments, China is facing critical land policy issues that will determine the direction of its future economic development and urbanization.
With these diverse issues in mind, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s China Program was inaugurated in 2003 and continues to focus on improving the quality of public debate and decisions concerning land policy and urban development in China through sound research and the leveraging of international experience and expertise.
The China Program has grown considerably in capacity, scope, and geographic footprint, highlighted by the establishment of the joint Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in October 2007. The Center’s mission is to study land, urban, and fiscal policies and to facilitate education, training, policy analysis, and research. Having this joint facility in Beijing provides the China Program with an ongoing domestic presence that expands the Institute’s networks and resources and brings together government officials, practitioners, and foreign and domestic scholars to engage in dialogue and to share experiences to promote a better understanding of land policy, urbanization, and property taxation in China and around the world.
The China Program has identified six key research areas that are highly relevant to China’s future development and also offer the best opportunities to utilize the Lincoln Institute’s expertise and resources.
Adoption of a Property Tax
China’s 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010) elevated the issue of a property tax onto the official agenda, and pilot property tax projects are currently under way in more than 10 provinces. However, the issue’s sensitive political nature, lingering technical difficulties concerning data and valuation, and continued debate about the exact form of any proposed property tax have slowed implementation and made it unlikely that a broader property tax and related tax policy reforms will be implemented before the 12th Five-Year Plan begins in 2011.
Through close working relationships with the State Administration of Taxation (SAT), the Ministry of Finance (MOF), and the Development Research Center for the State Council (DRC), the China Program has offered a number of educational programs and provided significant intellectual and capacity building support for China’s adoption of a property tax.
For example, in October 2009 representatives of the British Columbia Assessment Office, the Altus Group, and ESRI Canada led a China Program training workshop on property tax implementation and design of computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems. More than 50 SAT officials participated, including representatives from each of the property tax pilot cities.
Delegates from the SAT and the Lincoln Institute attended a three-day conference on valuation and mass appraisal at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, in March 2009, before traveling to Johannesburg’s valuation office to discuss the challenges of implementing a property tax in that country.
In November 2008, training on technical aspects of property valuation was provided in Beijing by property tax experts from Canada, the United States, South Africa, and Hong Kong for more than 40 administrators and assessors from China’s property tax pilot cities.
Local Public Finance
Fiscal policy reform is a key component in addressing many of the social and economic problems China faces. Restructuring the current tax system and promoting balanced tax and expenditure responsibilities at the local government level is one of the main policy objectives of the Chinese government. The underlying efforts are closely related to the future development of any property tax, a necessary and critical solution to local public finance challenges.
The China Program is focused on issues of fiscal decentralization, public service financing, land-related taxes and fees, regional inequity, intergovernmental finance, and the role of property taxation in a modern public sector finance system. Representative activities have included a January 2009 workshop in Beijing on fiscal policy and economic growth in China with leading fiscal policy scholars and experts, including officials from the MOF, DRC, and SAT.
An international conference held at the Lincoln Institute’s headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts in May 2008 focused on local public finance and property taxation. Those proceedings will be edited and published in a Lincoln Institute book in 2010, and the volume will be translated and published in China as well.
Land Policy and Land Management
The revision of China’s Land Management Law has been a sensitive issue over the past several years, as the country struggles to define rural land rights, land expropriation, and the public good. With a new land law revision on the horizon, land-related issues remain at the forefront of China’s policy agenda, particularly issues concerning urban and rural property rights, land expropriation, land use efficiency, land use planning, land conservation, and urban expansion and sprawl.
In June 2009 the China Program co-organized a roundtable discussion on the most recent draft revision of China’s Land Management Law with the Land Law Committee of the China Land Science Society in association with the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR). Experts and prominent scholars from across the political spectrum engaged in direct dialogue and discussion with government officials at MLR who are working on the revision.
The China Program is now compiling and translating several land management laws from a dozen developing and developed countries for use by Chinese officials and scholars. The Program also cosponsored a comprehensive survey of land use and farmland conservation issues in a dozen provinces in China, and is building a database for future research on land management issues.
Urban Planning and Development
Rapid urbanization has led to the explosive growth of Chinese cities and their populations, presenting an enormous challenge in terms of city planning, infrastructure, and transportation. New approaches to urban planning are fundamental to the development and management of cities, as well as a prerequisite to ensuring the efficient use of land and integrated development in China. Efforts also must be made to use land sensibly and to coordinate the spatial layout of urban areas, thereby avoiding rampant and uncontrolled urbanization.
The China Program cooperated with the Chinese Society for Urban Studies and the Urban Planning Society of China, affiliated with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, in organizing the July 2009 International Forum on Urban Development and Planning, which featured the theme “Harmony and Ecology: Sustainable Cities.”
In cooperation with the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Planning and Urban Form, more than 20 international speakers attended a symposium on megaregions and spatial planning practice worldwide, held in Beijing in October 2008.
Affordable Housing
Housing policy, and in particular affordable housing, is becoming an important focus for China’s policy makers during this period of rapid urbanization. With upwards of 15 million new urban residents expected annually over the next decade, the growth in the supply of affordable housing is an immediate concern. In addition to a one-year joint policy research project with the DRC, the China Program is conducting original research in the field of housing policy and introducing international experience to China’s policy makers and the academic community.
For example, in July 2009 the China Program organized a symposium on low-income housing policy in China to provide a platform for international and domestic scholars and government officials from DRC, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the People’s Bank of China to engage in dialogue and discussion. Papers from the symposium will be published in an edited volume for distribution in China. The China Program also hosted an international conference entitled Housing Policy and Housing Markets in China in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in May 2009, and is preparing an edited conference volume for publication in both English and Chinese.
Environmental Challenges
With international attention focusing on recent climate negotiations in Copenhagen, there is a pressing need for timely research on low-carbon development and the complex linkages between land, transportation, and urban and environmental policies in China and globally. The China Program is leading research on environmental taxation in China from a global perspective and developing a database of environmental tax statistics.
The Program organized a roundtable on green cities at Peking University in September 2009, which drew strong interest from domestic and international academics and signaled the need for further study of environmental policy issues in the future. And in May 2008, the Program, joined by Loeb Fellows from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design and Chinese policy makers and academics, held a roundtable discussion at Peking University that addressed urban transformation and sustainability.
Building Capacity to Address the Issues
Since its inception the China Program has been committed to enhancing the capacity of both current policy makers and academics and researchers whose analysis and opinions will influence China’s future policies and reforms. This educational emphasis continues with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, which has become an important platform for reaching and engaging students and scholars at Peking University and other academic institutions through training programs, fellowships, lecture series, online education, and research publications.
Training the Trainers
This annual program aims to enhance the capacity and awareness of scholars throughout China regarding urban economics, planning, public finance, and related land policy issues. The courses target university faculty and professional researchers, as well as select government officials, with the goal to increase competence through intensive professional seminars on issues related to land policy in China. More than 70 participants on average attend each two-week training program. Leading experts in their fields from around the world offer the participants an invaluable international perspective. The China Program’s recently launched online education platform seeks to build on previous training programs and to move progressively toward more specialized trainings.
Fellowships
The China Program awards several types of fellowships to international and Chinese scholars and graduate students working on Chinese land and urban policy. Two or three international fellowships are awarded annually to leading scholars and professional researchers based at universities around the globe. In addition to producing important research on issues ranging from the spatial structure of megacities to household carbon emissions in Chinese cities, the international fellowship is an invaluable tool to increase scholarly dialogue between China and the world. These fellows are an integral component of the China Program’s other activities, such as teaching at Training the Trainers programs, reviewing other fellowship proposals, and speaking at seminars.
Fellowships for Chinese graduate students and junior researchers are administered through the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center to bring young scholars into Chinese land and urban policy studies. Approximately 15 dissertation fellowships are awarded to aspiring scholars annually, while an additional 6 or 8 research fellowships help strengthen the capacity of scholars based in China’s leading institutions.
The China Program’s in-country presence at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center also facilitates interactions among the fellows, including the provision of constructive feedback on their ongoing research. All fellows are invited to Beijing for a mid-term progress report, where they share their initial research findings with peers and a panel of international experts. This event has proven to be an effective way to help domestic junior scholars and graduate students build research skills and promote studies of urban and land issues in China.
Speaker Series
The China Program also regularly invites distinguished individuals drawn from the Lincoln Institute’s network of leading scholars and policy makers to speak to the Beijing scholarly community on vital topics ranging from planning support systems to fiscal federalism and decentralization in the United States. This speaker series helps meet the demand for knowledge about international development and urbanization experiences and how these cases can be adapted to fit China’s needs.
Online Education
The Lincoln Institute has long history of employing online education as a tool to reach a broader audience and maximize its resources. Given the vast geographic distances in China and its emphasis on training and capacity building, the China Program has similarly been interested in online education for some time. The establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center has accelerated the process of making information, analysis, and data available online, and widened the network of collaborators interested in tapping into the Institute’s expertise.
Through the Center, the China Program engaged a local online education company to develop a China-centric platform, which was inaugurated in the summer of 2009 during the China Program’s Training the Trainers session on urban economics and planning. The two-week program was recorded and translated into Chinese, and is accompanied online by Chinese transcripts of lectures and associated PowerPoint presentations and other materials.
The value of the online platform has become apparent almost immediately. During the fall 2009 program and demonstration on property taxation and CAMA, which was also recorded for later conversion to the online platform, attending SAT officials expressed their eagerness to use the platform to demonstrate the concepts to their colleagues and superiors.
Publications and Web-based Resources
As the China Program has increased its research capacity and professional support with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, it is producing a steadily increasing series of working papers, books, and training materials that are extending the Lincoln Institute’s and the China Program’s expertise on and influence in China. During 2008 and 2009, nine books were published or made ready for print, and eight other books are at various stages of development. The China Program and the Center’s fellows and visiting fellows have also produced about 40 working papers and a number of focused reports and policy briefs, which will soon be available online.
Complementing all of these activities is the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center’s revamped Web site. It provides a window into the China Program’s mission and vision, and is an important link between the Lincoln Institute’s and the China Program’s dual educational and research objectives. Drawing together Chinese and English working papers, training and education materials, and conference proceedings from both the Lincoln Institute and the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, the Web site is a rich repository of impartial knowledge and an expanding platform for scholarly dialogue concerning the ascendant land, urban, and environmental policy issues in China.
In 2010, the China Program will continue to strengthen its online resources to synthesize and disseminate its recent research to a broader audience of Chinese scholars and policy makers through new publications and focused policy reports, while also striving to advance academic debate through research, demonstration projects, conferences and other activities.
About the Author
Joyce Yanyun Man is senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s China Program, as well as director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. She is also professor of economics in the Peking University College of Urban and Environmental Science.
SHARE
En la mayoría de los países, las propiedades del gobierno no se encuentran sujetas al impuesto sobre la propiedad; de hecho, la sola idea podría considerarse como un intercambio circular de dinero (Bird y Slack 2004; Youngman y Malme 1994). En el último tiempo, el Reino Unido ha adoptado un punto de vista muy diferente. Considerando que es muy importante que tanto el gobierno como los ocupantes del gobierno municipal estén al tanto del verdadero costo que implica tener propiedades, el Reino Unido insiste en un sistema de alquileres teóricos y garantiza la sujeción a los impuestos sobre la propiedad de ámbito municipal.
Desde la promulgación de la Ley de Asistencia a la Pobreza en 1601 (la fecha generalmente aceptada en que comenzó la tributación de inmuebles municipales en el Reino Unido) hasta el año 2000 (cuando se aprobaron los cambios a esta ley), los inmuebles ocupados por el gobierno o la Corona no se encontraban sujetos al impuesto o a las “tasas” sobre la propiedad. No obstante, la Corona, de hecho, aceptó que era apropiado realizar algún tipo de aporte con el fin de cubrir los costos de los servicios municipales, por lo que pagaba voluntariamente aportes en lugar de tasas (CILOR, por sus siglas en inglés). Este proceso conllevaba varios problemas: los aportes eran voluntarios; los inmuebles de la Corona no figuraban en los listados de valuaciones; y la base sobre la cual se realizaban los aportes carecía del rigor y la transparencia de valuación que se aplicaban al resto de las propiedades.
La Ley Municipal de Gobierno y Valuación se promulgó en 1997 para su aplicación en Inglaterra, Escocia y Gales (más tarde, en 1998, se introdujo una modificación para Irlanda del Norte) con el fin de que todos los inmuebles de la Corona estuvieran en pie de igualdad con respecto al resto de las propiedades sujetas a impuesto y pudieran ser pasibles de ser valuadas para determinar sus tasas. Estas disposiciones entraron en vigor el 1 de abril de 2000. Como resultado, edificios emblemáticos tales como el Palacio de Westminster y la Torre de Londres son valuados por primera vez en la actualidad de la misma manera que el resto de las propiedades.
Valuación de inmuebles comerciales
Los tasadores de la Agencia de Valuaciones (VOA, por sus siglas en inglés), perteneciente al Departamento de Impuestos y Aduanas de Su Majestad (HMRC, por sus siglas en inglés), son los responsables de compilar y mantener los listados de valuaciones de inmuebles comerciales (no residenciales) para Inglaterra y Gales. En Escocia, los responsables son los tasadores municipales, y en Irlanda del Norte, la responsabilidad recae sobre el Servicio de Suelos e Inmuebles. En general, el valor catastral de un inmueble no residencial está basado en el alquiler anual por el cual podría haberse alquilado en el mercado abierto a una fecha estándar (la fecha de valuación precedente). En el caso de Inglaterra y Gales, la fecha precedente para los listados de 2000 fue el 1 de abril de 1998; para los listados de 2005, el 1 de abril de 2003; y para los listados de 2010, que entraron en vigor el 1 de abril de 2010, la fecha precedente fue el 1 de abril de 2008.
La Tabla 1 muestra la cantidad de inmuebles sujetos a impuesto en Inglaterra y Gales y su valor catastral (imponible) total. Resulta un tanto difícil realizar comparaciones con los impuestos sobre la propiedad basados en el valor capital, ya que para ello es necesario conocer los rendimientos respectivos; aún así, es evidente que el nivel de tributación es extraordinariamente alto para un impuesto sobre la propiedad. El nivel del impuesto en Inglaterra y Gales es de aproximadamente el 45 por ciento, aunque esta cifra corresponde a los valores de alquiler, no de capital.
El gobierno del Reino Unido establece una tasa uniforme del impuesto en forma separada (peso por libra esterlina) para Inglaterra, conocida como el multiplicador de valuación para inmuebles no residenciales. En Escocia y Gales, esta tasa es determinada por sus respectivas asambleas y, en el caso de Irlanda del Norte, cada consejo distrital establece su propia tasa. Así se determina el monto a pagar sobre cada libra esterlina de valor catastral, a fin de obtener la factura completa de tasas del impuesto. Las autoridades municipales son las responsables de calcular el monto de las facturas y recaudar las tasas del impuesto sobre inmuebles no residenciales correspondientes a las propiedades que se encuentran dentro de sus áreas de influencia. No obstante, las autoridades no conservan los montos que cobran, sino que los depositan en un fondo nacional (uno para Inglaterra y otro para Gales). El dinero que conforma dicho fondo se redistribuye luego entre las autoridades municipales, con ciertos acuerdos especiales para la ciudad de Londres.
Antecedentes de la exención a la Corona
Antes de que se emitieran los listados de valuaciones en el año 2000, ciertas propiedades ocupadas por la Corona, tales como las instalaciones donde funcionan las oficinas del gobierno central y el Ministerio de Defensa, se encontraban exentas de la valuación y no figuraban en ningún listado de valuaciones. No obstante, la Corona realizaba un CILOR en forma voluntaria en base a un valor catastral teórico.
La Corona no figuraba expresamente ni en la Ley de Asistencia a la Pobreza de 1601 (la ley original de valuaciones se conocía también como la Ley de Isabel) ni en la Ley de Tasas Generales de 1967 que la reemplazó. Debido a que uno de los principios del derecho del Reino Unido consistía en que la Corona no se encontraba sujeta a ningún acto parlamentario a menos que se la mencionara específicamente, no era susceptible a las tasas. Además, no podía imponerse tasa alguna sobre aquellos inmuebles ocupados por sus funcionarios cuando dicha ocupación se entendía como ocupación por la Corona. Este fue el punto de vista mantenido en la causa Jones contra Mersey Docks 11 HL Cas. 443 (1865).
Sin embargo, ya en 1860 el gobierno aceptó el principio de que la Corona pagara alguna suma en forma de CILOR voluntario respecto de los inmuebles ocupados a los fines públicos. Dicha práctica se volvió uniforme en 1874. El Tesoro del Reino Unido adoptó, mediante acta formal, el principio de que los inmuebles ocupados para las funciones públicas debían pagar tasas municipales de la misma manera que otros inmuebles de los condados en los que estaban ubicados, teniendo en cuenta las características de cada caso. El acta del Tesoro estableció el Departamento de Valuaciones de Propiedades del Gobierno (RGPD, por sus siglas en inglés) para evaluar todos los inmuebles del gobierno con el fin de adoptar, en cada caso y hasta donde fuera posible, los mismos principios que se aplicaban a la valuación de inmuebles particulares.
El derecho consuetudinario del siglo XIX establecía que la exención sólo se aplicaba a las propiedades ocupadas por la Corona misma o sus funcionarios, y no al resto de los inmuebles ocupados con fines públicos. Por lo tanto, la exención se aplicaba generalmente a los inmuebles ocupados para usos del gobierno central y a los palacios y parques reales, así como también a otros inmuebles ocupados por funcionarios de la Corona (por ejemplo, la ocupación por parte de los ministros de gobierno o el personal militar de la base naval real, del ejército y de la fuerza aérea real).
En 1896, mediante otra acta del Tesoro se reafirmó el principio de aporte equitativo y se establecieron ciertas concesiones a fin de que entrara en plena vigencia. Estas concesiones consistían en una revaluación periódica, el pago dentro de los plazos establecidos y una contribución con respecto a las cámaras del Parlamento.
A continuación se detallan las principales características del CILOR en los últimos años de su existencia:
Los acuerdos del CILOR se diferenciaban del resto de los procedimientos de valuación estándar en los siguientes aspectos principales:
Fundamentos para eliminar la exención a la Corona
El gobierno ha estado debatiendo la eliminación de la exención a la Corona ya desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. El Comité Central de Valuaciones, en una carta fechada el 21 de enero de 1947 y dirigida al Ministro de Salud, de hecho sugería dicha eliminación, a la vez que declaraba que su punto de vista, desde hacía mucho tiempo, era que los acuerdos de valuación de inmuebles ocupados por la Corona vigentes hasta ese momento eran en muchos aspectos injustos e insatisfactorios para las autoridades municipales, quienes, en ese entonces, establecían sus propios niveles de tasas. En la década de 1950, las asociaciones de autoridades municipales inglesas expresaron su descontento con la exención aplicable a la Corona y llegaron hasta el punto de declarar que la forma de calcular los CILOR era completamente arbitraria y que con frecuencia representaba un perjuicio para las autoridades municipales. En 1952 calcularon el valor catastral de los inmuebles de la Corona en Inglaterra y Gales en aproximadamente £14 millones, de un valor catastral total de cerca de £341 millones, lo que equivaldría a £2.200 millones según los niveles de valores en la revaluación del año 2010.
A mediados de la década de 1990, el gobierno consideró varios aspectos impulsores para un cambio:
La Ley Municipal de Gobierno y Valuación de 1997 estableció la eliminación de la exención que gozaba la Corona de tasas por inmuebles no residenciales en Inglaterra, Gales y Escocia con vigencia a partir del 1 de abril de 2000. Las autoridades responsables de la valuación cobrarían las tasas correspondientes a los inmuebles de la Corona directamente a los respectivos departamentos, en lugar de cobrarlos a la CPU. Dichas autoridades también podrían iniciar procedimientos de ejecución en contra de la Corona, tal como lo harían con otros contribuyentes. Aunque esto ocurriría solamente en raras ocasiones, las autoridades responsables de las valuaciones podrían, en principio, tomar medidas contra un departamento del gobierno con el fin de obtener una orden de apremio por falta de pago de tasas, en el caso de que fuera necesario.
Los profesionales de la valuación en el Reino Unido han sugerido que, debido a que la valuación es un impuesto, tasar y sujetar a impuesto los inmuebles ocupados por entes públicos representa un derroche de recursos públicos. Las propiedades que podrían incluirse en esta categoría incluyen aquellas ocupadas por el Ministerio de Defensa, el Servicio Nacional de Salud y las autoridades municipales. Superficialmente, el hecho de valuar y sujetar a impuesto estas propiedades puede parecer injustificado. La dificultad reside en que muchas de las actividades que tradicionalmente son llevadas a cabo por el gobierno central o los gobiernos municipales ahora son también realizadas por el sector privado. Un ejemplo de ello son los centros de recreación. Aplicar la exención de tasas a las propiedades de las autoridades municipales cuando estas compiten directamente con el sector privado podría considerarse injusto, ya que le brindaría una ventaja fiscal al sector público.
Aunque el sector público ocupa otros edificios cuya utilización actual evidentemente no compite con el sector privado, resulta difícil justificar la exención de ciertos inmuebles ocupados por el sector público, mientras incluye otros. La justificación original para valuar edificios ocupados por los entes públicos (incluyendo la eliminación de la exención a la Corona en 2000) fue establecer una base en condiciones de igualdad, garantizar que los costos de ocupación se reconocieran en su totalidad y brindar transparencia en cuanto a la contribución de los entes del sector público para cubrir los costos relacionados con los servicios públicos brindados.
Valuación de edificios emblemáticos
La eliminación de la exención a la Corona precipitó la necesidad de valuar una amplia gama de inmuebles fuera de lo común. La valuación en el Reino Unido es un impuesto que se aplica al ocupante y no al propietario, y está basado en la utilización real amplia en lugar de la mayor y mejor utilización del inmueble. Los edificios muy antiguos con frecuencia deben ser valuados, aunque muchos de ellos se han modernizado y se utilizan para diferentes fines, tales como oficinas, usos comerciales mixtos o, al menos en parte, atracciones turísticas.
El tradicional enfoque de comparación de valuaciones pudo aplicarse en inmuebles que tenían un uso similar, con el fin de permitir la determinación de un valor de alquiler indicativo para algunas estructuras, aunque, en el caso de otras, la tarea resultó mucho más difícil. Por ejemplo, la Casa Somerset, sobre el río Támesis, es un bloque de oficinas construido a tal fin, pero es además el primer bloque de oficinas del gobierno que fue construido a tal fin, data de 1776 y ha sido utilizado en filmaciones comerciales, por lo que resulta difícil compararlo con otros edificios.
La valuación de inmuebles fuera de lo común no se limita a las propiedades de la Corona o a aquellas en las que el método de comparación de alquileres no puede usarse porque no existen comparaciones de interés. En tales casos, la aplicación del método de ingresos y gastos o el método de las ganancias puede resultar mucho más confiable a la hora de determinar el valor de mercado en cuanto al alquiler de una propiedad. Este método es apropiado si el inmueble sujeto a valuación es comercial por naturaleza o posee cierto grado de monopolio, y si la principal motivación del ocupante para utilizar el inmueble fuera obtener ganancias y, de hecho, estuviera obteniéndolas (Bond y Brown 2006).
En el caso de no poder utilizar ni el método de la comparación ni el método de ingresos y gastos, se aplica entonces el método de base de contratistas o método de costos cuando el inmueble sirve principalmente para fines públicos y no se encuentra ocupado para beneficio comercial, o cuando el inmueble en cuestión es comercial pero no constituye un centro de ganancias con sus propias cuentas. En ambos casos, el ocupante (o propietario) debería soportar el costo de un inmueble de reemplazo para poder continuar con la utilización del inmueble.
Además del problema de la valuación, nos enfrentamos a la complejidad que existe en el Reino Unido en cuanto a tener un impuesto separado sobre propiedades residenciales. En Inglaterra, Escocia y Gales, este tributo se denomina impuesto municipal, mientras que en Irlanda del Norte, el sistema tiene que ver con tasas residenciales. Si alguna parte del inmueble se utiliza para fines residenciales, según se define en la legislación, entonces se determina el impuesto residencial sobre dicha porción del inmueble. De esta manera, en cuanto al Palacio de Buckingham y al Castillo de Windsor, ambos palacios reales, se aplica una valuación sobre la porción no residencial y comercial, y un impuesto municipal sobre las secciones residenciales de dichos edificios.
Palacio de Westminster
El Palacio de Westminster, también denominado Parlamento, es un palacio real y el lugar donde las dos cámaras del Parlamento del Reino Unido celebran sus sesiones, es decir, la Cámara de los Lores y la Cámara de los Comunes. El Palacio es el centro de la vida política y “Westminster” se ha convertido en una metonimia que refiere al Parlamento del Reino Unido y al sistema de gobierno de Westminster, del cual se origina su nombre. La Torre de Isabel, a la cual generalmente se la llama por el nombre de su campana principal, Big Ben, es un hito emblemático de Londres. La arquitectura del Renacimiento Gótico, obra de Sir Charles Barry, data de 1840, pero el extraordinario Salón de Westminster con su techo de cerchas se remonta al año 1097.
El Palacio de Westminster ha sido parte del patrimonio de la humanidad desde 1987. Este Palacio tenía un valor catastral de £14.700.000 en el listado municipal de valuaciones de 2010 (£5.500.000 en el listado de valuaciones de 2000). Si se aplica la tasa estándar del impuesto del 45,8 por ciento, la deuda impositiva ascendería, sin tener en cuenta ninguna exención, a aproximadamente £6.730.000 por año. La tasación en realidad combina cuatro edificios: el Palacio, la Casa Portcullis, la Puerta Derby 1 y los edificios Norman Shaw. Todas estas secciones se valúan según el método comparativo respecto de las oficinas, y se aplican descuentos por diseño y tamaño, de corresponder. En el caso del Palacio, ambas Cámaras se encuentran valuadas al 65 por ciento de la tasa principal por metro cuadrado. Existe también otro descuento con el fin de reflejar la superficie cubierta total en la propiedad.
Palacio de Buckingham
El Palacio de Buckingham es la residencia oficial y principal lugar de trabajo de Su Majestad la Reina Isabel II en Londres, tanto respecto de su posición como monarca británica y jefe de estado de varios países en todo el mundo, como de cabeza de la Mancomunidad Británica. Este Palacio, ubicado en la ciudad de Westminster, es la sede donde se desarrollan los eventos de estado y donde se brinda hospedaje real. El edificio que hoy en día forma el centro del palacio, y que anteriormente se denominaba Casa Buckingham, era una gran residencia urbana que se construyó para el Duque de Buckingham en 1705. El Palacio de Buckingham se convirtió en el palacio real oficial de los monarcas británicos cuando la Reina Victoria ascendió al trono en 1837.
El Palacio de Buckingham se utiliza en parte como una de las residencias del monarca, aunque principalmente consiste de oficinas. Hace poco se ha permitido cierto uso comercial limitado, ya que algunos sectores del edificio se encuentran abiertos a los visitantes. La parte comercial posee un valor catastral de £1.300.000 según el listado de valuación municipal de 2010. El Palacio se valúa utilizando dos métodos. En primer lugar, se aplica el método de ingresos y gastos o de ganancias a fin de reflejar el componente comercial (aproximadamente 400.000 personas lo visitaron en el año 2011). La propiedad está abierta durante 63 días al año en horarios limitados, por lo que los ingresos respectivos se consideran anualizados y luego se agrega el 5 por ciento a fin de reflejar el hecho de que, si estuviera abierto al público durante más horas, se generarían más ingresos por entradas. Las cuentas comerciales, según los informes publicados, muestran que el valor catastral fue equivalente al 6,3 por ciento de los ingresos corrientes de mantenimiento. En segundo lugar, el método de contratistas o de costos se aplica a la Galería de la Reina. El componente residencial del Palacio posee 775 habitaciones, entre las que se cuentan 52 dormitorios reales y para huéspedes, 188 dormitorios para el personal, 19 salas de estado y 78 baños. En el período 2011-2012, la factura del impuesto municipal ascendió a £1.369.
Torre de Londres
El Palacio Real y Fortaleza de Su Majestad, comúnmente conocida como la Torre de Londres, es un castillo histórico que descansa sobre la ribera norte del río Támesis en la zona central de Londres y data de la conquista de Inglaterra por parte de los Normandos en el año 1066. La Torre Blanca, que le otorga su nombre a todo el castillo, fue construida por Guillermo el Conquistador en 1078. La Torre ha tenido diferentes funciones: arsenal, oficina del tesoro, prisión, zoológico, sede de la Casa de la Moneda Real y oficina de registros públicos. En la actualidad, la Torre alberga las joyas de la Corona y es una de las atracciones turísticas más conocidas del país: en el año 2011 recibió aproximadamente 2,55 millones de visitantes.
La Torre se encuentra protegida ya que ha sido declarada patrimonio de la humanidad por la UNESCO (además de estar protegida por muros muy altos y sistemas de alarma muy elaborados). El inmueble se valúa según el método de ingresos y gastos, debido a su valor particular en calidad de atracción turística. El valor catastral equivale aproximadamente al 4,7 por ciento de los ingresos corrientes de mantenimiento. En el listado municipal de valuaciones del año 2010, la propiedad tenía un valor catastral de £1.790.000 (en el listado de valuaciones del año 2000 el valor fue de £1.180.000).
Stonehenge
Stonehenge es un círculo de piedras prehistórico que se encuentra en la llanura de Salisbury. Está integrado por un monumento de rocas megalítico formado por 150 piedras enormes colocadas siguiendo un diseño circular, que data del año 3.000 A.C. Aunque existen otros círculos de piedras mucho más grandes en otros lugares del mundo (inclusive uno cercano en Averbury), Stonehenge es único debido a que las piedras de arenisca se encuentran coronadas por dinteles que se empalman unos con otros y que, alguna vez, formaron un círculo completo y conectado. Stonehenge fue construido a lo largo de un período de 1.500 años. Se lo ha declarado patrimonio de la humanidad y atrae aproximadamente un millón de visitantes al año. Debido al funcionamiento comercial de esta propiedad, se la valúa aplicando el método de ingresos y gastos, a un valor catastral de £700.000.
Resumen
Los inmuebles que son propiedad de la Corona y ocupados por esta se valúan actualmente de acuerdo con los métodos y principios normales de valuación. La eliminación de la exención a la Corona ha dado como resultado la valuación “correcta” de ciertos edificios históricos únicos y, muchas veces, emblemáticos. Los métodos de valuación aplicados deben reflejar la utilización que se hace de cada edificio y, donde las comparaciones de alquileres sean limitadas, es posible que deba aplicarse el enfoque basado en los costos. Este último enfoque implica importantes dificultades cuando se aplica a edificios con una antigüedad de varios centenares de años. En tales casos, los tasadores deben ser creativos, artísticos y científicos en sus valuaciones.
Sobre los autores
William McCluskey es investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones sobre el Entorno Construido de la Universidad de Ulster, Irlanda del Norte, Reino Unido. Contacto: wj.mccluskey@ulster.ac.uk.
David Tretton FRICS FIRRV es profesor invitado en la Facultad de Entorno Construido de la Universidad de Ulster, Irlanda del Norte, Reino Unido. Anteriormente fue jefe de departamento y director de Tasación en la Agencia de Valuaciones de Londres. En la actualidad es el editor técnico de RICS Valuation – Professional Standards (libro rojo). Contacto: dtretton@rics.org o djtretton@btinternet.com.
Los autores desean agradecer a Patrick Bond, BSc FRICS Dip. Rating IRRV (Hons), jefe de la Unidad de Especialistas Nacionales en Asuntos Comerciales, Cívicos y de Ocio de la Agencia de Valuaciones de Londres.
Referencias
Bird, R. M. y E. Slack. 2004. International handbook of land and property taxation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bond, P. y P. Brown. 2006. Rating valuation: Principles and practice. Londres: Estates Gazette.
Informe Oficial de la Carta de Ciudadanos. 1991. Citizens Charter Open Government, Cm 2290, HMSO, Londres.
Youngman, J. M. y J. H. Malme. 1994. An international survey of taxes on land and buildings. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
