Conventional wisdom and basic economic principles would suggest that an area subject to higher commercial and industrial property taxes than its nearby neighbors will suffer reduced economic development in comparison to those neighbors. On the other hand, any effort to reduce such unequal or “classified” property tax rates will produce a revenue shortfall. Raising taxes on homeowners to equalize rates and recover this lost revenue will encounter enormous and obvious political resistance.

This is the situation currently facing Cook County and the city of Chicago, and was the subject of a conference led by Therese McGuire of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Held last September and cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the IGPA, and the Civic Federation of Chicago, the program brought together more than a hundred business and civic leaders, academics and practitioners to consider alternative methods of addressing the problems presented by the Cook County classification system.

In Illinois, the use of a property tax classification system by Cook County has been blamed for the economic decline of Chicago and the inner suburbs. The classification system is also seen as a barrier to reforming school funding and the state’s tax system. Are these charges valid? Does the classification system put Cook County at an economic disadvantage compared to its rapidly growing adjacent “collar counties”? If classification has so many shortcomings, why was it instituted in the first place? If we are only now recognizing those shortcomings, what steps can be taken that are both economically and politically feasible to overcome the problems?

Overview of Tax Classification

Illinois has long operated under the twin principles of uniformity and universality for both real and personal property, and both principles were incorporated into the Illinois Constitution of 1870. However, de facto or administrative classification of real property developed in Cook County as a response to the difficulty in taxing personal property in the same manner as real property. By the 1920s, the Cook County assessor publicly acknowledged assessing residential property at 25 percent of real value and business property at 60 percent.

A 1966 Illinois Department of Revenue report noted that Cook County was using 15 different classification groups. Despite the fact that classification was clearly in violation of the 1870 Constitution, the Illinois Supreme Court had refused to confront the issue. By the late 1960s, however, the court was prepared to overturn the existing system, and the 1970 constitutional convention faced the potential threat of court intervention.

The convention was the product of numerous reform efforts in Illinois during the previous decade. The state had failed to find a compromise redistricting plan after the 1960 census, causing the entire Illinois House to be elected as at-large members in 1964. That election brought many reformers to office, and a House-created commission charged with recommending constitutional reforms subsequently called for the 1970 convention.

Several delegates on the convention’s revenue committee were passionately in favor of uniformity, and they had considerable support from experts who opposed classification as a matter of economic policy. On the other hand, the Chicago delegation was adamant in demanding that the new constitution legalize classification. It was generally believed that without legalization, the new constitution would not have the support of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and his delegation, in which case it would fail to pass.

As a result, the 1970 Illinois Constitution allowed counties with a population greater than 200,000 to classify property for taxation. The extension of classification to these large counties was also allowed for the collar counties because many taxing districts crossed those county boundaries. Cook County’s system was thus guaranteed, but the Constitution gave the General Assembly the power to apply limitations because of concerns there would be a crazy quilt of classifications should the collar counties adopt that system. Nevertheless, no collar county has done so.

Today, Cook County’s classification system is considered by many to be an impediment to Illinois’ attempts to deal with a variety of social and economic issues. Politically, classification is believed to be partly to blame for the failure to reform education funding in Illinois. In 1997, then Governor James Edgar led an unsuccessful attempt to convince the General Assembly to gradually shift the burden of education funding from property taxes to income taxes. One of the strongest arguments against the effort was that it would be a windfall for businesses and corporations, whose property taxes would be shifted to individual taxpayers. That shift would have even been greater in Cook County, which has more than 47 percent of the state’s entire assessed value and where businesses pay property taxes at a rate double that of homeowners.

Impacts on Economic Development

In terms of economic development, some observers believe that classification puts Cook County at a disadvantage in the eyes of business people who might consider locating in Illinois or expanding their operations in the state. While there are obviously other factors involved, the concern is that classification would cause these companies to look more favorably at locations in the collar counties or other states.

Recent research has shown that high property taxes do have a negative effect on the market value of property and do deter businesses from locating in the affected areas. Studies of property tax differences in the Boston, Phoenix and Chicago areas have shown that, because higher property taxes mean higher rents and lower market values, real estate development shifts from the high-tax area to the low-tax area over time. Other studies have shown that manufacturers seeking to relocate are very sensitive to local property tax rates. New construction and retail trade are also affected negatively, although the service sector is not as influenced by high property taxes.

Is this the case in Cook County? A recent study by Richard Dye, Therese McGuire and David Merriman, all affiliated with the IGPA, found that the effective tax rate of Cook County (5.52 percent for commercial and 5.78 percent for industrial property) is higher than in the collar counties, which have an average rate of 2.54 percent on all property. Furthermore, they found that four measures of economic activity-growth in the value of commercial property, the value of industrial property, the number of establishments and the employment rate-were measurably lower in Cook County than in the collar counties. But is that the end of the story?

No, according to the study’s authors. A multifaceted national trend is dispersing population, employment and business activity away from metropolitan centers to outlying counties. To determine if it is this national trend or specific property tax differences that is causing slower economic growth in Cook County, the study examined the characteristics of 260 municipalities in the Chicago metropolitan area. The researchers used two samples of municipalities-one metro-wide and the other limited to those near the Cook County border, where the effects of higher tax rates should be most potent.

The researchers presented their results, at the conference finding, “weak evidence at best that taxes matter.” Once other influences on business activity were factored out, the researchers determined that, for the entire six-county region, employment was the only economic activity that seemed to be adversely affected by property taxes, although in the border region the market value of industrial property was also affected. “The bottom line is that the evidence is mixed and inconclusive,” said McGuire. “There is no smoking gun.”

Another participant in the conference challenged this interpretation of the results. Michael Wasylenko of Syracuse University, who had been asked to review the study in advance and discuss it at the conference, said he was convinced that the researchers did find significant effects because the employment measure is a better measure of economic activity than the others. “I think the weight of the evidence suggests that these results are consistent with previous findings that property tax differentials will have a substantial effect on employment growth within a metropolitan area.”

If the employment factor, then, is the one to be given the most weight and Cook County’s property tax classification system is economically disadvantageous, in addition to being a political roadblock to reform, what is to be done? “It comes down to whether the economic gains that might be realized if you went to a non-classified tax are worth the political battles. Are the economic development advantages enough to want to do this,” said Wasylenko.

The economic and political stakes in this decision are high, since Cook County currently levies more than 50 percent of all property taxes in the state. The county cannot rapidly shift a large part of the tax burden among classes of property, but neither can it ignore concerns that the tax burden on businesses located there place it at an economic disadvantage with regard to its nearby neighbors. Any solution must be approached as a component of the overall tax system, be grounded in verifiable data, and have significant support from the public, the media and business interests. The September conference sought to contribute to that process of informed public debate on a crucial fiscal topic.

In early December, the Cook County assessor proposed reducing the assessment ratio (the ratio of assessed value to market value) for certain types of business property: from 36 to 33 percent for industrial properties such as factories and distribution facilities; from 33 to 26 percent for large investor-owned residential property; and from 33 to 16 percent for multiuse storefront businesses with apartments on upper floors. The assessor’s hope is that more favorable treatment of business will lead to even more rapid growth of the tax base over time. While these recommendations came out of several different tax studies, any changes in assessment rates must by approved by the Cook County Board before they can be implemented.

Scott Koeneman is communications manager at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) of the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois.

References

Dye, R., T. McGuire and D. Merriam. 1999. “The Impact of Property Taxes and the Property Tax Classification on Business Activity in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

Giertz, J.F., and T. McGuire, “Cook County, Ill., Assessor Proposese Changes in Assessment Levels,” State Tax Today. Dec. 7, 1999.

Man, J. 1995. “The Incidence of Differential Commercial Property Taxes: Empirical Evidence,” National Tax Journal, 48: 479-496.

McDonald, J. 1993. “Incidence of the Property Tax on Commercial Real Estate: The Case of Downtown Chicago,” National Tax Journal, 46: 109-120.

Wheaton, W. 1984. “The Incidence of Inter-jurisdictional Differences in Commercial Property Taxes,” National Tax Journal, 37: 515-527.

Source: Illinois Department of Revenue

Latin America is a region of sharp contrasts in land use: the expansive Amazon forest and growing areas of deforestation; large uninhabited regions and enormous urban concentrations; the coexistence of wealth and poverty in the same neighborhoods. Many of these contrasts derive from land policies established by powerful land interests that are perpetuated because of outdated or distorted data. This heritage is a part of the region’s colonization process that has been characterized by the exploitation and occupation of land at any price.

The first land information system for registering parcels in Latin America was established in 1824 by the Topographic Commission in the Province of Buenos Aires in the Republic of Argentina. Territorial cadastre offices throughout the region now manage public land information systems that register maps and data about the parcels on which taxes are levied and rights are granted to the owners or occupants of the land.

What Is a Cadastre?

A modern cadastre is an integrated database system that holds information on land registration and ownership, physical characteristics, econometric modeling for property valuation, zoning, geographic information systems, transportation, and environmental, socioeconomic and demographic data. Such cadastres represent a holistic planning tool that can be used at the local, regional and national levels to address issues such as economic development, sprawl, poverty eradication, land policy and sustainable community development.

The earliest recorded accounts of property surveys in ancient Egypt used the science of geometry to measure distances. European cadastres later followed this ancient model until advancements led to more fully integrated systems that could be used for fiscal purposes, such as valuation, taxation and legal conveyance, as well as land management and planning. The United States does not have a national cadastral system, but similar municipal processes reflect both the policy and protocol of international cadastre programs.

The International Federation of Surveyors was founded in Paris in 1878 as the Fédération Internationale des Géomètres and is known by its acronym, FIG. This nongovernmental organization represents more than 100 countries and supports international collaboration on surveying through the collection of data on surface and near-surface features of the earth and their representation as a map, plan or digital model. FIG’s work is conducted by 10 commissions that specialize in different aspects of surveying. Commission 7, Cadastre and Land Management, focuses on issues in cadastral reform and multipurpose cadastres; parcel-based land information systems; cadastral surveying and mapping; and land titling, land tenure, land law and registration. For more information, see www.fig.net/figtree/commission7/.

Multipurpose Cadastres

In recent years, the vision of the cadastre as a multipurpose information system has begun to evolve, bringing with it great advances in the quality of land information systems, as well as some problems. The origin of these concerns can be found in the very concept of multipurpose cadastre systems and in the administrative decisions needed for their implementation. A common assumption holds that to implement a multipurpose cadastre it is necessary to expand the alphanumeric databases—including social and environmental data as well as the usual physical (location and shape), economic and legal aspects of the parcel—and to connect this information with a parcel map in a geographical information system (GIS). While this is very important, it is not enough.

Implementation of a multipurpose cadastre implies a change of paradigm for its administration and demands a new land use framework law and new relationships between the public and private sectors. In 1996 Brazil established a biannual National Multipurpose Cadastral Congress that examines its own state-level cadastre programs and those in neighboring countries. Despite the attention devoted to cadastres and the many papers published on the topic since then, there is no evidence of any municipality in which the multipurpose cadastral system is actually working as well as hoped.

According to the literature, the way to make a cadastre truly multipurpose is to integrate all the public and private institutions that are working at the parcel level using a unique identifier, and to define standards for the alphanumeric and cartographic databases. Chile is one of the countries where all the parcels have a common identifier designated by the implementation of the National Territorial Information System, although the system does not yet integrate the alphanumeric cadastral data with maps at the parcel level (Hyman et al. 2003).

Centralization versus Decentralization

The hegemony of the unitary system of government that characterizes most Latin American countries has caused a predominance of centralized cadastres, although this phenomenon also occurs in countries with a federal government. Brazil, for example, recently restructured its National System of Rural Cadastre, which, in spite of the technical advances proposed by Law 10.267/2001, will continue to be administered by an institution of the national government.

In contrast, the decentralization movement in the region aspires to modernize state governments by transferring powers to municipal jurisdictions, including the institutions responsible for land administration. For example, more than half of the states in Mexico still have centralized cadastral data, although some have begun to decentralize by creating municipal systems that are compatible with the state cadastre. A similar situation is occurring in Argentina, where some provincial institutions are beginning to transfer systems and data to the municipalities. Local administrators have an added incentive for assuming responsibility for organizing and maintaining cadastral systems because of the opportunities to collect property taxes and sell maps or databases registered in the local cadastral system to utility companies and other entities in the private sector.

All these good intentions, however, frequently run up against the chronic problem of the scarcity of capable personnel and infrastructure. In some cases decentralization may constitute a problem rather than a solution and it could jeopardize the maintenance and validation of data. For example, the adoption of the decentralized model may lead to the coexistence of extremely detailed and precise cadastres in some locations with practically nonexistent cadastres in other locations. Such discrepancies between adjacent municipalities may create inconsistent land information when it is aggregated at the regional and national levels.

A centralized model, on the other hand, can facilitate the unified design and structuring of the cadastre and guarantee the integration of geodetic and cartographic systems with the identification of parcels. The difficulties in accessing and distributing information for local needs might be solved by using the Internet to organize land data and maps through the central cadastre. Some countries, such as Jamaica, Chile and Uruguay, are beginning to structure their eCadastres in this way. (This term is derived from the eGovernment concept introduced by the World Bank.)

When considering the varying development stages of Latin American cadastres, we can conclude that each jurisdiction must analyze which type of system is most appropriate for its own circumstances. It is worth considering the Common Principles on the Cadastre in the European Union, a document that affirms that “there are no intentions to unify the cadastral systems of the member states; however, there is interest in standardizing products” (Permanent Committee 2003). If it is possible to work with different cadastral systems across Europe, it must be possible to do so within a single country.

Public versus Private Cadastres

After the publication of Cadastre 2014 by the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), one of the new visions that provoked much discussion was the proposal that the cadastre should be “highly privatized; public and private sectors are working closely together, reducing the control and supervision by the public sector” (Kaufmann and Steudler 1998). For example, in Japan private companies have almost total control of the cadastral base of some cities, whereas in the member states of the European Union the cadastre resides within the government sphere.

In Latin America, cadastres remain primarily in the hands of public institutions; the private sector normally participates in the processes of implementing cartographic updates and information systems, but not in the administration itself. The Mexican municipality of Guadalajara, for example, did a comparative study of costs, concluding that managing the cadastre with its own public employees and equipment would yield a savings of 50 percent in investments, which was confirmed after one year of implementation.

In spite of the positive results obtained from such projects developed entirely within public administrations, the private sector cannot be ignored, particularly in the context of the privatization wave that has hit Latin America in recent years. For example, telephone, water and electric companies need up-to-date land information in the same way as the public institutions. Their common interest in maintaining databases is leading the cadastre offices and the utility companies to work together and share investments, as well as to look for ways to standardize data and define common identifiers for the parcels.

Conclusions

The majority of Latin American cadastral systems are still registering three kinds of data following the traditional economic-physical-legal model: the economic value, the location and shape of the parcel, and the legal relationship between the property and the owner or occupant. However, there is increased interest in utilizing multipurpose information systems. In this transition process, some administrators have decided to implement new cadastral applications based only on technology; evidently, this has not been as successful as they imagined. This incorporation of new technologies must be accompanied by necessary changes in procedures and legislation and by professional training of public employees.

In recent years international institutions such as the World Bank, the Lincoln Institute and many European and American universities have been collaborating to help improve Latin American cadastres. They support educational programs, academic events and concrete projects for implementing reliable and updated land information systems. As the transition to multipurpose cadastres continues, changes will be implemented through a careful revision of relevant legislation, more accessible forms of customer service, stronger collaboration between private and public institutions that generate and use cadastral data, and the application of contemporary international standards. Territorial cadastres in Latin America will become even more efficient and valuable if they generate information that allows the development of projects oriented to fundamental social concerns such as land regularization and identification of vacant land.

Diego Alfonso Erba is professor of advanced GIS applications and digital cartography at UNISINOS (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos) in São Leopoldo-RS, Brazil, and a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute.

References

Hyman, G., C. Perea, D. Rey, and K. Lance. 2003. Encuesta sobre el desarrollo de las infraestructuras nacionales de datos espaciales en América Latina y el Caribe. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). (Survey on the development of national infrastructures of spatial data in Latin America and the Caribbean. International Center for Tropical Agriculture.)

Kaufmann, Jürg, and Daniel Steudler. 1998. Cadastre 2014: A vision for a future cadastral system. Frederiksberg, Denmark: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Available at http://www.swisstopo.ch/fig-wg71/cad2014.htm.

Permanent Committee on Cadastre in the European Union. 2003. Common principles on the cadastre in the European Union. Rome. December 3. Available at http://www.eurocadastre.org/.

Las ciudades enfrentan grandes dificultades a la hora de intentar introducir un sistema del impuesto a la propiedad más eficiente. Uno de los desafíos consiste en controlar la alta volatilidad política relacionada con los impuestos que gravan en forma directa los activos, como por ejemplo el impuesto a la propiedad, que posee un alto nivel de visibilidad. La estrecha proximidad entre las autoridades fiscales y los contribuyentes se traduce en una presión política para reducir los impuestos y evitar la actualización de los avalúos inmobiliarios. Los funcionarios municipales se convierten en blancos fáciles para la crítica, a la vez que pueden experimentar consecuencias electorales.

Aunque el impuesto a la propiedad es reconocido internacionalmente como un instrumento preferido para financiar los servicios públicos urbanos, en la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos este impuesto tiene una importancia limitada como fuente de recaudación, representando en promedio un 0,32 por ciento del PIB (De Cesare 2010). Las ciudades brasileñas recaudan un promedio de cerca de US$ 46,50 per cápita en impuestos a la propiedad por año. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las ciudades no alcanzan el promedio nacional. En más de la mitad de los municipios, los ingresos no exceden los US$ 5,00 per cápita (Afonso et al. 2010).

El modelo brasileño del impuesto a la propiedad

El impuesto a la propiedad (IPTU: Imposto sobre a Propriedade Predial e Territorial Urbana) es un impuesto directo tributado al municipio en base a una estimación del justo valor de mercado de las propiedades inmuebles. En Brasil se ha perdido gran parte del potencial de recaudación de este impuesto debido a que las autoridades municipales no logran administrar dicho impuesto en forma correcta y efectiva. El tratamiento de la revisión legislativa del IPTU siempre termina en debates acalorados y una respuesta política intensa que, en muchos casos, lleva a los alcaldes y otros funcionarios a evitar su participación en el proceso.

Un problema adicional es el estricto requisito legal mediante el cual los criterios de valuación deben ser aprobados por ley antes de poder actualizar la base impositiva. Entre estos criterios se encuentran las características de la propiedad y sus componentes, así como también el valor monetario asignado a cada uno de dichos componentes. En otras palabras, para los legisladores brasileños, no es suficiente establecer criterios para determinar que una propiedad tiene mayor valor que otra y que, por lo tanto, está sujeta a un impuesto más alto. La misma ley debe aclarar de qué manera una propiedad que posee determinadas características se valuará en términos monetarios.

Después de años de debate, el Tribunal Superior de Brasil estableció, en el año 1996, que se requiere una norma municipal para actualizar la base impositiva del IPTU, siempre que el ajuste sea mayor a la variación del Indice de Precios al Consumidor oficial (Declaración 160). Con anterioridad a esa sentencia, las ciudades solían actualizar los valores inmobiliarios a los fines impositivos mediante actos ejecutivos (decretos), en forma independiente de la legislatura municipal. A partir de la introducción de este requisito legal en 1996, muchos gobiernos municipales decidieron no enviar los proyectos de ley necesarios a la legislatura municipal para realizar las tan necesarias actualizaciones en la valuación inmobiliaria.

En algunos casos, los desastres políticos resultantes de esta situación sirvieron como un alarmante factor de inhibición ante cualquier nuevo intento por revisar la base impositiva. Con el fin de resolver este dilema, varias ciudades optaron, en cambio, por aumentar las alícuotas del IPTU para compensar su reticencia a revaluar las propiedades. Además, por cada nueva ley que aprueba una actualización en la valuación, se suelen crear nuevos tipos de exenciones o reducciones impositivas, lo que frecuentemente cancela los esfuerzos tendientes a mejorar el rendimiento del IPTU.

Como resultado de la resistencia política, el IPTU, por lo general, no se tuvo mucho en cuenta como fuente de ingresos para las finanzas municipales en Brasil. Las ciudades más grandes (con más de 500.000 habitantes) comenzaron a concentrar sus esfuerzos en el impuesto a los servicios (ISS: Imposto Sobre Serviços) mientras que las ciudades más pequeñas dependían en mayor medida de las transferencias realizadas por el gobierno estatal y federal a través del fondo municipal de participación en los ingresos (FPM: Fundo de Participação dos Municípios) (ver tabla 1 en anexo).

El Instituto Federal de Investigación Económica Aplicada (IPEA 2009) informa que el IPTU ha perdido importancia en cuanto a su participación en la recaudación municipal directa a nivel nacional y que se registró un aumento de los ingresos provenientes del impuesto a los servicios, un impuesto indirecto que tiende a ser regresivo. La participación del IPTU en la recaudación municipal directa se redujo del 38 por ciento al 28 por ciento entre 1991 y 2007, resultando en la pérdida de su posición ante el ISS como fuente principal de recaudación municipal directa (ver tabla 2 en anexo).

Un importante cambio que afectó directamente al IPTU ocurrió en diciembre de 2009, cuando el Ministerio de Ciudades publicó la Resolución Nº 511, mediante la cual se establecían directrices nacionales para el Catastro Técnico Multifinalitario (CTM: Cadastro Técnico Multifinalitário). Esta resolución les otorgó a los gobiernos municipales un valioso instrumento estándar sobre el cual basar sus propuestas legislativas con el fin de actualizar la base impositiva del IPTU. El Instituto Lincoln desempeñó un papel fundamental al apoyar el desarrollo de los aspectos técnicos de dicha legislación.

La Resolución Nº 511 establece que la valuación de propiedades con fines fiscales es un proceso técnico que debe realizarse siguiendo las pautas establecidas por la Asociación Brasileña de Normas Técnicas (ABNT) para reflejar el justo valor de mercado. También establece que un IPTU efectivo promueve la justicia fiscal y social al garantizar un tratamiento equitativo para los contribuyentes. Se recomienda la actualización de la base impositiva del IPTU en alguno de los siguientes casos: (1) cada cuatro años, en las ciudades con más de 20.000 habitantes (las ciudades más pequeñas podrán adoptar ciclos más extensos); (2) cuando la tasa de valuación sea menor al 70 por ciento o mayor al 100 por ciento comparada con el valor de mercado; o (3) en casos en que los valores inmobiliarios cumulativos resulten en un coeficiente de dispersión mayor al 30 por ciento, de lo cual se infiere que no estén distribuidas equitativamente.

¿Qué inspiró la reforma del impuesto a la propiedad?

Junto con el fortalecimiento de un marco institucional, otros dos factores contribuyeron a colocar al IPTU en el centro del debate actual sobre las fuentes de financiamiento municipal en Brasil. El primero de ellos fue el aumento acelerado de los valores de los terrenos urbanos, tanto en ciudades grandes como medianas. Este aumento se debió principalmente al crecimiento económico, a la explosión de los créditos para vivienda, a los bajos impuestos y al bajo riesgo comparado con la inversión en activos financieros desde 2003 hasta 2007 (Carvalho Júnior 2010). La expansión del sector inmobiliario expuso las discrepancias que existían entre la recaudación potencial y el flujo real de fondos hacia la tesorería pública derivado del impuesto a la propiedad.

El segundo factor que desató el debate acerca de la actualización de las valuaciones impositivas para mejorar el rendimiento del IPTU fue la crisis económica mundial que comenzó en el año 2008 y alcanzó al Brasil en 2009. A medida que se reducía la actividad económica, situación que reflejaba menores niveles de consumo y de producción y una contracción crediticia, las transferencias federales hacia los municipios también se redujeron. Las ciudades que experimentaron esta pérdida de ingresos no tuvieron otra alternativa que resucitar al IPTU, el impuesto municipal más antiguo y tradicional.

En este contexto, algunas de las ciudades brasileñas más grandes actualizaron sus mapas de valores inmobiliarios utilizando estimaciones revisadas de los valores de los terrenos, así como también elaborando cuadros de costos de construcción con el fin de valuar las mejoras, ya que tanto los terrenos como las propiedades tenían una valuación extremadamente baja. Belo Horizonte, São Paulo y Salvador se encuentran entre las ciudades que tomaron medidas para mejorar su recaudación mediante la actualización de la base impositiva del IPTU. Estas ciudades introdujeron, además, nuevas políticas para orientar la implementación del impuesto a la propiedad.

Cabe hacer notar que mantener desactualizada la base impositiva del IPTU supone un riesgo. Una de las principales fuentes de injusticia fiscal, además del problema de las omisiones al inscribir terrenos o áreas de desarrollo urbano, es la utilización de avalúos desactualizados para el cálculo del IPTU (Smolka y De Cesare 2009).

El caso de Belo Horizonte

Belo Horizonte es la capital, y la ciudad más grande, del estado de Minas Gerais, ubicada en la región sudeste de Brasil. Con una población de 2,4 millones de habitantes, es la quinta ciudad más grande de Brasil y el centro de un área metropolitana que contiene una población de aproximadamente 5 millones de habitantes.

El gobierno municipal tiene un largo historial de innovación y buena gobernabilidad. La ciudad fue pionera en introducir el proceso de presupuesto participativo en el año 1993, en adoptar aplicaciones del SIG (Sistema de Información Geográfica) para mejorar la gestión municipal, y en llevar a cabo una exitosa campaña para erradicar el hambre, entre otras iniciativas notables. Belo Horizonte recaudó aproximadamente $332 en impuestos a la propiedad per cápita en el año 2007, antes de la reforma, y alcanzó el séptimo puesto en el ranking de las ciudades capitales más grandes de Brasil (Afonso et al. 2010).

La reforma del impuesto a la propiedad comenzó en Belo Horizonte mediante una revisión de la base impositiva, con la doble intención de eliminar las distorsiones creadas por el modelo anticuado e introducir una nueva cultura fiscal que apoyaría un proceso permanente de actualización de las valuaciones inmobiliarias con el fin de reflejar las variaciones del mercado.

La necesidad de obtener ingresos adicionales, sumada a la experiencia de la crisis financiera del año 2009, también influenciaron las decisiones tomadas por el alcalde. Las subsecuentes reducciones en la actividad económica y en las transferencias federales convencieron al gobierno municipal de que se debían establecer condiciones financieras más sustentables para poder mantener la autonomía administrativa. El primer paso en el camino para actualizar la base impositiva del IPTU fue intensificar la utilización de este impuesto y convencer a los legisladores acerca de esta necesidad.

A la hora de elaborar una estrategia para la reforma tributaria, el gobierno municipal llegó a la conclusión de que el cambio no podría presentarse simplemente como una revisión de la valuación de las propiedades debido a la necesidad de aumentar la recaudación. También debería incluir otros aspectos, tales como medidas para mitigar el impacto del aumento impositivo y brindar incentivos para que los contribuyentes cumplieran con el pago del impuesto. Smolka y De Cesare (2009) mencionan que, a pesar de la precisión de las estimaciones de las valuaciones, si el ajuste provoca grandes diferencias en el monto de impuestos a pagar, se generará una reacción por parte de los contribuyentes que se verían sustantivamente recargados. En este caso, deberían ofrecerse planes para aliviar dicho impacto.

El proceso legislativo

Una vez diseñada la reforma e identificadas sus virtudes y vulnerabilidades, el proyecto fue remitido, primero, al concejo deliberante municipal, con el fin de mantener el enfoque en aquellas personas facultadas para votar y aprobar el proyecto de ley. Es un error común buscar el apoyo popular antes o durante el proceso de votación, ya que el poder ejecutivo, por lo general, pierde la batalla si intenta actuar en dos frentes al mismo tiempo.

Los procesos de votación en el caso del IPTU se establecen mediante ley municipal. No obstante, poseer un conocimiento profundo del proceso legislativo es muy necesario y, muchas veces, resulta un as bajo la manga. En Belo Horizonte, resultaba muy importante evitar tanto un proceso prolongado que pudiera dar lugar a un debate extendido como un proceso demasiado breve, ya que cualquier hecho inesperado podría posponer la votación indefinidamente.

Una vez presentados a los legisladores, se aclararon completamente todos los puntos del proyecto de reforma tributaria. Cada uno de los aspectos, tanto positivos como negativos, se debatió en el concejo, y por supuesto los aspectos favorables fueron siempre antepuestos a cualquier debilidad apuntada. Los legisladores deben escudarse ante las dudas que siempre se les plantean, además de estar constantemente bien informados y comprometidos con los criterios de justicia tributaria inherentes al proyecto. Este es el papel principal que desempeña el representante del alcalde, un miembro clave del grupo principal que implementó la reforma. Tal y como se preveía, a fines de noviembre de 2009 se aprobó el proyecto en su segunda y última ronda.

El debate legislativo acerca del proyecto de ley fue tanto un fin en sí mismo como una preparación para la presentación pública del proyecto. Durante el proceso de aprobación legislativa, se generaron muchas expectativas en cuanto a la reforma, particularmente por parte de la prensa. A partir de ese momento, la estrategia consistió en promover todos los beneficios del nuevo sistema de valuación y recaudación del IPTU, con el fin de eliminar todo motivo de temor hasta que verdaderamente llegara el proyecto de ley tributaria en enero de 2010.

La campaña de información pública

Los principales instrumentos utilizados para presentar la reforma al público consistieron en el lanzamiento de una campaña de información pública y el establecimiento de mesas de información en toda la ciudad para responder a las preguntas de los ciudadanos. La siguiente fase fue implementar las medidas destinadas a mitigar el impacto de la reforma y brindar incentivos para que los contribuyentes cumplieran con el pago del impuesto.

Durante la campaña, la administración hizo hincapié en el mensaje de que toda la recaudación derivada del IPTU se utiliza en obras que transforman las vidas de las personas. El objetivo de este mensaje era hacer concretos y visibles los beneficios del IPTU, lo que logró ser una forma eficiente de demostrar a los ciudadanos la importancia práctica de este impuesto para el desarrollo de la ciudad y para el bienestar de sus habitantes. Este mensaje se repitió frecuentemente.

En enero de 2010 funcionaban diez mesas de asistencia al contribuyente en diferentes partes de la ciudad. Cerca de 200 empleados municipales participaron en forma directa prestando asistencia a más de 20.000 consultas personales de los contribuyentes, de las cuales el 26 por ciento consistieron en solicitudes de revisión del proyecto de ley tributaria. Este porcentaje resultó mayor que en el año 2009, aunque mucho menor que las expectativas pesimistas que pronosticaban una avalancha de reclamos (ver figura 1 en anexo).

La estrategia general consistía en determinar en qué medida podía controlarse la situación, lo que implicó implementar una estructura tributaria compatible con el nivel de reclamos esperado. La elaboración de dicha estructura requiere una previsión y atención extraordinarias para calmar al contribuyente y concentrar su atención en lo que realmente es importante: el cálculo correcto del impuesto y su pago dentro del plazo establecido por ley.

Sin embargo, una buena estructura tributaria no resulta suficiente. Otro aspecto importante es la capacitación del personal para brindar servicios a los contribuyentes. Una atención confiable, calma y rápida evita arruinar la calidad del proceso, la revisión de la base impositiva y las nuevas políticas tributarias. Un buen servicio al contribuyente también reduce los riesgos políticos derivados de la actualización periódica de las valuaciones inmobiliarias.

La gestión del proceso

Entre las lecciones útiles que podemos extraer del proceso de reforma tributaria en Belo Horizonte, destacamos la importancia de evitar la actualización de la base impositiva solamente en tiempos de crisis financiera con el fin de aumentar la recaudación, ya que esto socava el trabajo de establecer prácticas de valuación correctas. En cambio, resulta aconsejable adoptar y mantener una política permanente de actualización que garantice la equidad.

En segundo lugar, debería hacerse hincapié en la equidad del proceso de revaluación, en vista de un mercado tan cambiante que impone variaciones de precios que requieren ajustes impositivos. Los impuestos sobre el consumo no discriminan en cuanto a la situación económica del contribuyente y poseen un efecto regresivo, mientras que el IPTU permite aplicar alícuotas progresivas, por lo que ayuda a mejorar el nivel de equidad que, a su vez, fomenta el acceso a la vivienda, contribuye a la autonomía municipal y conduce a una planificación eficiente de la ciudad. En lugar de depender principalmente de los impuestos indirectos o de las transferencias federales, el municipio que utiliza el impuesto a la propiedad en forma eficiente puede reducir las desigualdades sociales y ordenar los espacios urbanos con mayor efectividad, a la vez que evita las especulaciones y ayuda a preservar el medio ambiente (IPEA 2009).

Un tercer punto importante consiste en establecer canales claros para debatir sobre el plan de reforma. Preferiblemente, las medidas en cuanto a las políticas deberían ser tomadas por un representante confiable del alcalde, autorizado para negociar en su nombre mediante un proceso democrático y colectivo. Belo Horizonte estableció un grupo principal al frente del cual se designó a una persona encargada de coordinar qué tipo de información se divulgaría y de qué manera se debatiría con el público.

Si el proceso no se comprende cabalmente, puede generarse una resistencia insuperable, lo que pondría en peligro todo el proyecto. Así, uno de los factores claves consiste en tener un agente de prensa que esté bien informado y que sea capaz de tratar con las críticas y preguntas que seguramente deberá enfrentar, así como también un técnico que conozca bien el proyecto de reforma y pueda ofrecer las explicaciones que requieran los diferentes protagonistas involucrados en el proceso.

Medidas de exención del impuesto a la propiedad

Belo Horizonte logró su objetivo mediante los argumentos de justicia y autonomía administrativa, que culminaron en la aprobación de una revisión completa del sistema del impuesto a la propiedad, el cual incluyó las siguientes medidas de exención:

• Reducciones de las alícuotas impositivas: Estas reducciones se introdujeron después de haber actualizado la base impositiva con el fin de evitar una carga tributaria que excediera la capacidad de pago del contribuyente.
• Ajuste del impuesto progresivo: La ciudad también introdujo categorías graduadas de al impositivas que concordaran con los valores inmobiliarios. Con esto, se reemplazó en forma efectiva lo que había sido, en la práctica, una tasa impositiva única.
• Expansión del umbral de valor de exención: Esta medida corregiría la situación que se da cuando, en un mercado inmobiliario dinámico, muchas propiedades antiguas o aquellas propiedades cuyos propietarios tienen bajos ingresos no se incluyen en la categoría de exención del IPTU una vez que se realiza la revaluación. Con el fin de evitar esta situación, se elevó el umbral para los valores inmobiliarios que se encuentran exentos del impuesto.
• Extensión del impacto de la reforma a lo largo de dos ejercicios fiscales: Aun en el caso de aquellos contribuyentes que poseen capacidad de pago, el aumento del IPTU podría generar un desequilibrio en sus presupuestos personales debido a otros compromisos financieros que pudieran haber contraído. Por lo tanto, la ciudad permitió el pago de la mitad del aumento en el año 2010 y el monto completo en 2011.
• Pago diferido: Ciertas circunstancias especiales, tales como el desempleo, una enfermedad o una deuda anterior, pueden afectar la capacidad de pago del impuesto a la propiedad por parte de un contribuyente. La reforma estableció que todo contribuyente que demuestre estar atravesando por condiciones críticas podría solicitar el aplazamiento del pago de una parte del impuesto hasta el año 2013.
• Creación de programas de descuento: Uno de los objetivos de la reforma tributaria en Belo Horizonte fue convertir al IPTU en un impuesto que promoviera la redistribución de ingresos y contribuyera a una mayor calidad de vida urbana. Por lo tanto, la ciudad ofrece descuentos impositivos a cambio de la participación de los ciudadanos en los programas sociales, educativos, de salud y de desarrollo económico que promueven el desarrollo de la ciudad.
• Descuentos por pago adelantado: El IPTU anual en Belo Horizonte puede abonarse en once cuotas iguales que vencen el día 15 de cada mes entre febrero y diciembre. Los contribuyentes que paguen un mínimo de dos cuotas hasta el 20 de enero reciben un descuento del 7 por ciento en concepto de pago por adelantado. Según los antecedentes, una gran cantidad de contribuyentes optan por esta alternativa. Dichos pagos por adelantado garantizan al municipio un fondo de ingresos suficiente para cumplir con los compromisos financieros al comienzo del ejercicio fiscal, que se computa de enero a diciembre de cada año.

Evaluación de los resultados

La fase final de la reforma consiste en verificar los resultados. En Belo Horizonte, los resultados de dicha evaluación confirmaron el éxito de todo el proceso de planificación e implementación, a la vez que representa una fuente de información para las mejoras que deban realizarse en el futuro. Este éxito puede medirse, en parte, observando el aumento en los pagos del impuesto por adelantado, lo que ilustra la aceptación del modelo por parte de los contribuyentes. En la tabla 3 (en anexo) se comparan los aumentos en varias medidas desde 2009 hasta 2010. En la tabla 4 (en anexo) se comparan los aumentos en la recaudación del IPTU durante los primeros seis meses de cada uno de estos dos años.

No obstante, los logros mencionados podrían perderse a largo plazo si no se cumplen ciertas condiciones. Una de dichas condiciones consiste en institucionalizar la actualización periódica de los valores inmobiliarios utilizados para calcular el impuesto a la propiedad. Esta tarea resulta crítica, ya que la planificación estratégica utilizada en esta reforma tuvo como motivo principal precisamente el extenso período durante el cual el mapa de valores del suelo de Belo Horizonte se mantuvo sin modificaciones, lo que generó discrepancias con los precios reales del mercado y agotó los ingresos municipales.

La segunda condición consiste en crear mecanismos que garanticen la calidad técnica de las valuaciones impositivas y, a la vez, liberen al gobierno municipal de la carga política que supone realizar las actualizaciones necesarias. El objetivo es convertir al procedimiento de actualización tributaria en una obligación legal de naturaleza técnica en lugar de considerarlo una decisión política.

Otra de las opciones que consideraron fue la creación de un comité de valuación que realizara valuaciones colectivas coordinadas por las autoridades municipales. Dicho comité estaría formado por colaboradores de distintas entidades que forman parte del mercado inmobiliario, tales como agentes inmobiliarios, constructores, valuadores privados o entidades financieras. Esta medida ayudaría a apaciguar las connotaciones políticas que impregnan el sistema del impuesto a la propiedad y a desarrollar programas de revaluación inmobiliaria que dependan de los participantes del mercado en lugar de los críticos.

La exitosa experiencia de Belo Horizonte, aunque deja lugar para mejoras, puede servir de referencia para otras ciudades que deseen actualizar sus catastros inmobiliarios y sus pautas para realizar valuaciones colectivas. En la tabla 5 se delinean algunas de las cuestiones que deberán tenerse en cuenta hacia este fin.

Referencias

Afonso, José y otros. 2010. “The urban property tax (IPTU) in Brazil”. Informe de investigación sin publicar. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Carvalho Júnior, Pedro Humberto Bruno de. 2010. “Defasagens na cobrança de IPTU”. En Desafios do Desenvolvimento 61 (enero / febrero): 32.

De Cesare, Claudia M. 2010. “Overview of the property tax in Latin America”. Documento de trabajo. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

IPEA (Instituto de Investigación sobre Economía Aplicada). 2009. https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/comunicado/090827_com… (27 de agosto).

Smolka, Martim y Claudia De Cesare. 2009. “Necessária, revisão requer transparência”. En Folha de São Paulo, 14 de octubre.

Sobre el autor

Omar Pinto Domingos obtuvo su título en derecho en la Universidad Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) y su título de postgrado en administración de impuestos municipales en el Centro de Especialización en Derecho, asociado a la Universidad Gama Filho. Domingos es auditor fiscal y gerente de impuesto inmobiliario en la Municipalidad de Belo Horizonte y ha participado en varias comisiones de reforma tributaria. Asimismo, es conferencista regular sobre temas fiscales y tributarios en los cursos patrocinados por el Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln. El presente artículo se extrajo de su presentación en un seminario realizado en Curitiba en mayo de 2010, patrocinado en conjunto con el Ministerio de Ciudades de Brasil.

Se agradece a Mario Collado por su ayuda con la traducción de este artículo.

In most countries, government property is not liable for property taxes; indeed, the whole idea may be seen as a circular shifting of money (Bird and Slack 2004; Youngman and Malme 1994). The United Kingdom has taken a very different perspective recently. Regarding it as important that both government and local government occupiers are aware of the true cost of holding property, the UK insists on a system of notional rents and ensures liability for local property taxes.

From the enactment of the Poor Relief Act in 1601, the generally accepted starting date for the taxing of local property in the UK, until 2000 when changes were enacted, property occupied by the government or Crown was not subject to property tax or “rates.” However, the Crown did accept that it was appropriate to make some contribution to meet the costs of local services and paid ex gratia contributions in lieu of rates (CILORs). This process suffered from a number of problems: the contributions were voluntary; Crown property did not appear in the valuation lists; and the basis upon which the contributions were made lacked the rigor and transparency of valuation that applied to all other property.

The Local Government and Rating Act was introduced in 1997 for England, Scotland, and Wales (with an amendment in 1998 for Northern Ireland) to effectively place all Crown property on the same footing as all other taxable property, liable to be assessed for rates. These provisions came into effect from April 1, 2000. As a result, such iconic buildings as the Palace of Westminster and the Tower of London are now being valued in the same way as all other property for the first time.

Valuing Commercial Property

Valuation officers of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), a part of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), are responsible for compiling and maintaining commercial (nondomestic) property rating lists for England and Wales. The local assessors are responsible in Scotland, and the Land and Property Services have responsibility for Northern Ireland. Broadly speaking, the rateable value of a nondomestic property is based on the annual rent that it could have been let for on the open market at a standard date (the antecedent valuation date). For England and Wales, the antecedent date of the 2000 lists was April 1, 1998; for the 2005 lists it was April 1, 2003; and for the 2010 lists, which came into effect on April 1, 2010, it was April 1, 2008.

Table 1 shows the number of taxable properties in England and Wales and their total rateable (taxable) value. Comparisons with capital value-based property taxes are a little difficult because it is necessary to know the relevant yields to make the comparison, but even so it is clear the level of taxation is unusually high for a property tax. The tax level for England and Wales is approximately 45 percent, but this is on rental, not capital, values.

The UK government sets a separate uniform tax rate (poundage) for England known as the nondomestic rating multiplier. For Scotland and Wales, it is set by their respective assemblies, and for Northern Ireland each district council sets its own rate. This determines the sum payable on every pound sterling of rateable value to arrive at the full rates bill. Local authorities remain responsible for calculating the bills and collecting nondomestic rates payable on properties within the authority’s area. They do not, however, retain the rates they collect but pay them into a national pool (one each for England and Wales). The money in the pool is then redistributed to local authorities with special arrangements for the City of London.

Background on the Crown Exemption

Prior to the 2000 rating lists, certain properties occupied by the Crown, e.g., central government offices and Ministry of Defence establishments, were exempt from rating and did not appear in any rating list. The Crown did, however, make an ex gratia CILOR based on a notional rateable value.

The Crown was neither expressly mentioned in the Poor Relief Act of 1601, the original rating act sometimes referred to as The Statute of Elizabeth, nor in the General Rate Act 1967 that replaced it. As it was a principle of UK law that the Crown was not bound by an act of Parliament unless specifically mentioned, there was no liability for rates. Further, no rates could be imposed with respect to property occupied by its servants whose occupation amounted to occupation by the Crown. This position was upheld by Jones v. Mersey Docks 11 HL Cas. 443 (1865).

However, as far back as 1860, the government accepted the principle of the Crown paying something by way of ex gratia CILORs with respect to property occupied for public purposes. This practice was made uniform in 1874. The Treasury of the UK, by formal Minute, adopted the principle that property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with the other property in the parishes in which it was situated, having regard to its character in each case. The Treasury Minute established the Rating of Government Property Department (RGPD) to undertake the assessment of all government property with the intention of adopting in each case as far as possible the same principles as were applicable to the valuation of private property. Nineteenth-century case law established that the exemption applied only to property occupied by the Crown itself or its servants, but not to other property occupied for public purposes. Generally, therefore, the exemption applied to property occupied for the purposes of the central government and the Royal palaces and parks, and to other property occupied by servants of the Crown (for example, occupation by government ministers or by military personnel of Royal Naval, army, and Royal Air Force bases).

In 1896, a further Treasury Minute reaffirmed the principle of equal contribution and made certain concessions in order to carry it fully into effect. The concessions included periodical revaluation, punctual payment, and a contribution with respect to the Houses of Parliament.

The following were the main characteristics of the CILOR in the last few years of its existence:

• The Crown Property Unit (CPU) of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) was responsible for agreeing to the assessment and CILOR (following its absorption of the RGPD).
• CILOR payments were collected by rating authorities from the CPU.
• Valuations were carried out, and bills calculated, on exactly the same rules and methods as under the rates proper, taking account of any relevant rating reliefs.
• Local authorities included CILOR payments with other nondomestic rate income paid into the rating pool, and the combined payments were then redistributed to receiving authorities.

The CILOR arrangements differed from standard rating procedures in the following main respects:

• Contributions were, in theory, voluntary.
• Valuations originally decided by the RGPD, albeit after discussion with the local valuation officer, were not always at the same level as normal assessments.
• Crown bodies did not have the same rights as ratepayers to appeal against their valuations, and to have their appeal determined by an independent Valuation Tribunal.
• Because the Crown is, in constitutional theory, one and indivisible, the CILOR treatment of properties occupied by more than one Crown body differed from the usual treatment of rateable property in more than one occupation. For CILOR, a single valuation was normally carried out for the property as a whole, and a single bill was calculated and sent to the major occupier, who then recouped the appropriate proportion of the total payable from the minor occupiers. Under standard rates, separate valuations are usually carried out for each separately occupied part of the property, and each occupier receives a separate bill.

Rationale for Removal of the Crown Exemption

The government debated the removal of the Crown exemption as far back as World War II. The Central Valuation Committee, in a letter of January 21, 1947, to the Minister of Health, while in effect suggesting such a removal also stated that it had long been its view that the then-arrangements for the rating of property occupied by the Crown were in many respects unfair and unsatisfactory to local authorities, who at the time set their own rate levels. In the 1950s, the English local authority associations expressed their dissatisfaction with the Crown exemption and went so far as to say that the manner of assessing CILORs was completely arbitrary and frequently worked to the detriment of local authorities. They estimated the rateable value of Crown property in England and Wales in 1952 to be around £14 million out of a total rateable value of about £341 million, which would equate to £2.2 billion based on levels of value at the 2010 revaluation.

In the mid-1990s the government considered several drivers for change:

• The Crown’s exemption from rates served no clear public policy objective, since Crown occupiers were, in any case, expected to make CILORs.
• It was the government’s general policy, as stated in the Citizens Charter White Paper (1991), that general Crown immunity should be removed progressively as legislative opportunities became available, so that the Crown should in general be subject to regulatory and enforcement arrangements on the same basis as others.
• The lack of appeal rights for Crown occupiers was unsatisfactory in principle.

The Local Government and Rating Act 1997 made provision to end the Crown exemption from nondomestic rates in England, Wales, and Scotland, effective April 1, 2000. Rating authorities would collect rates on Crown properties directly from the departments concerned, rather than from the CPU. These authorities also would be able to proceed with enforcement proceedings against the Crown, as they would with other ratepayers. Although this would happen in only the rarest of cases, rating authorities would in principle be able to take steps against a government department to obtain a liability order for unpaid rates if the need arose.

It has been suggested by the rating profession in the UK that, since rating is a tax, valuing and taxing properties occupied by public bodies is a waste of public resources. Properties that might fall in this category include those occupied by the Ministry of Defence, National Health Service, and local authorities. Superficially, valuing and taxing these properties may appear unjustified. The difficulty is that many activities traditionally carried out by central or local governments are now also performed in the private sector. Leisure centers are just one example. Exempting local authority properties from rates when they compete directly with the private sector could be argued to be unfair as it would give the public sector a fiscal advantage.

While the public sector occupies other buildings whose current use clearly does not compete with private business, it is difficult to justify exempting some publicly occupied properties and including others. The original justification for rating buildings occupied by public sector bodies (including the removal of Crown exemption in 2000) was to establish a level playing field, ensure that the costs of occupation were fully recognized, and make transparent the contribution of public sector bodies to the cost of providing local services.

The Valuation of Iconic Buildings

The removal of the Crown exemption precipitated the need to value a wide variety of unusual properties. Rating in the UK is an occupier’s not an owner’s tax and is based on broad actual use rather than highest and best use. Very old buildings often have to be valued, though many of them have been modernized and used for diverse purposes, such as offices, commercial mixed uses, or, at least in part, tourist attractions.

The traditional comparison valuation approach could be made with similarly used properties to enable determination of an indicative rental value for some structures, but for others the task was much more difficult. For example, Somerset House on the River Thames is a purpose-built office block, but it is the world’s first purpose-built government office block, dating back to 1776, and it has been used in commercial filmmaking, and so is difficult to compare to other buildings.

Valuing unusual properties is not confined to Crown properties or those for which the rental comparison method cannot be used because there are no relevant comparisons. In such cases, the use of the Receipts and Expenditure (R&E) or income method may be a more reliable guide to assessing the market rental value of a property. This method is appropriate if the property to be valued is commercial in nature or has a degree of monopoly, and an occupier would be motivated primarily by the prospect of profit in its use of the property and, indeed, makes a profit (Bond and Brown 2006).

If neither the comparison nor R&E methods can be used, then the Contractors Basis or cost method is applied where the property is provided primarily for public purposes and is not occupied for commercial profit, or where the property concerned is commercial but it is not a profit center with its own accounts. In both cases the occupier (or owner) would be prepared to incur the cost of a replacement property to carry on the use of the property.

In addition to the problem of valuation is the UK complexity of having a separate tax on domestic property. In England, Scotland, and Wales this is the Council Tax, but in Northern Ireland the system is one of Domestic Rates. If any part of a property is used for domestic purposes, as defined in the legislation, then that use is assessed for the domestic tax. Thus, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, both royal palaces, have a rating assessment on the non-domestic, commercial element and a council tax on the domestic sections of the buildings.

Palace of Westminster

The Palace of Westminster, also known as the Houses of Parliament, is a royal palace and the meeting place of the two chambers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Palace is the center of political life, and Westminster has become a metonym for the UK Parliament and the Westminster system of government for which it is named. The Elizabeth Tower, often referred to by the name of its main bell, Big Ben, is an iconic landmark of London. The Gothic Revival architecture by Sir Charles Barry dates from only 1840, but the remarkable Westminster Hall with its hammer beam roof dates from 1097.

The Palace of Westminster has been part of a World Heritage Site since 1987. The Palace had a rateable value of £14,700,000 in the local 2010 rating list (£5,500,000 in the 2000 rating list). If the standard tax rate of 45.8 percent is applied, then the tax liability ignoring any reliefs would be around £6,730,000 per year. The assessment actually combines four buildings: the Palace, Portcullis House, 1 Derby Gate, and the Norman Shaw buildings. All parts are valued on the comparative method with respect to offices, with allowances for layout and size if appropriate. In the case of the Palace the two chambers are valued at 65 percent of the main rate per square meter. There is a further end allowance to reflect the overall amount of floor space in the property.

Buckingham Palace

Buckingham Palace is the official London residence and principal workplace of HM Queen Elizabeth II, both with respect to her position as British monarch and head of state of many countries around the world, and as head of the Commonwealth. Located in the City of Westminster, the palace is a setting for state occasions and royal hospitality. Originally known as Buckingham House, the building that forms the core of today’s palace was a large townhouse built for the Duke of Buckingham in 1705. Buckingham Palace became the official royal palace of the British monarch on the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837.

Buckingham Palace is used in part as one of the monarch’s residences but consists mainly of offices. Recently limited commercial use has been introduced, as part of the building is open to visitors. The commercial portion has a rateable value of £1,300,000 in the local 2010 rating list. It is valued using two methods. First, the R&E or income method is used to reflect the commercial component (approximately 400,000 people visited during 2011). The property is open for 63 days per year with limited opening hours, so the relevant receipts are annualized, and 5 percent is added to reflect the fact that longer opening hours would generate more ticket sales. The trading accounts as published show that the rateable value equated to 6.3 percent of Fair Maintainable Receipts. Second, the Contractors or cost method is used for the Queen’s Gallery. The residential component of the palace has 775 rooms, including 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 19 state rooms, and 78 bathrooms. In 2011–2012 it had a council tax bill of £1,369.

Tower of London

Her Majesty’s Royal Palace and Fortress, commonly known as the Tower of London, is a historic castle on the north bank of the River Thames in central London. It dates to the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, and the White Tower, which gives the entire castle its name, was built by William the Conqueror in 1078. The Tower has served variously as an armory, a treasury, a prison, a menagerie, the home of the Royal Mint, and a public records office. Now it is home to the Crown Jewels and is one of the country’s most popular tourist attractions, having some 2.55 million visitors in 2011.

It is protected as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (and by some very high walls and elaborate alarm systems). It is valued by the R&E method, due to its particular value as a tourist attraction, and the rateable value equates to approximately 4.7 percent of fair maintainable receipts. For the local 2010 rating list the property had a rateable value of £1,790,000 (for the 2000 rating list the value was £1,180,000).

Stonehenge

Stonehenge is a prehistoric stone circle on Salisbury Plain comprising a megalithic rock monument of 150 enormous stones set in a circular pattern dating back to 3000 BC. While there are larger stone circles in the world, including one nearby at Avebury, Stonehenge is unique because the Sarsen stones are surmounted by lintels connecting to one another and once formed a complete, connected ring. Stonehenge was built over a period of 1,500 years. It is a World Heritage Site attracting some one million visitors per year. Given the commercial operation of the property, it has been valued using the R&E method at a rateable value of £700,000.

Summary

Crown-owned and occupied property is currently valued in accordance with normal valuation methods and principles. The removal of the Crown exemption has resulted in the “correct” valuation of unique and often iconic historic buildings. The valuation methods applied have to reflect the use of the buildings and, where rental evidence is limited, the cost-based approach may be required. This latter approach brings with it significant difficulties when applied to buildings that are several hundred years old. In such circumstances valuers have to be creative, artistic, and scientific in their valuations.

About the Authors

William McCluskey is a researcher in the Built Environment Research Institute, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK.

David Tretton FRICS FIRRV is a visiting professor in the School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK. He was formerly Head of Profession and Director of Rating at the Valuation Office Agency, London, and is currently the technical editor of the RICS Valuation–Professional Standards (Red Book).

The authors thank Patrick Bond, BSc FRICS Dip. Rating IRRV (Hons), head of Commercial, Leisure and Civics National Specialists Unit, Valuation Office Agency, London.

References

Bird, R. M., and E. Slack. 2004. International handbook of land and property taxation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bond, P., and P. Brown. 2006. Rating valuation: Principles and practice. London: Estates Gazette.

Citizens Charter White Paper. 1991. Citizens Charter Open Government, Cm 2290, HMSO, London.

Youngman, J. M., and J. H. Malme. 1994. An international survey of taxes on land and buildings. Boston, MA: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.