Thomas J. Nechyba is professor of economics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, where he also serves as director of undergraduate studies for the Department of Economics. In addition, he is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and he serves as associate editor for the American Economic Review and the Journal of Public Economic Theory. His research and teaching focus on the field of public economics, in particular primary and secondary education, federalism and the function of local governments, and public policy issues relating to disadvantaged families.

Professor Nechyba has lectured and taught in courses at the Lincoln Institute for several years, and he recently completed a working paper based on Institute-supported research, “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform.” This conversation with Joan Youngman, senior fellow and chairman of the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation, explores his interest in land taxation and his research findings.

Joan Youngman: How is a land tax different from a conventional property tax?

Thomas Nechyba: It’s really a question of tax efficiency. Any tax has two effects, which economists call the income and substitution effects. The income effect of a tax is the change in the choices made by the taxpayer because payment of the tax has reduced the taxpayer’s real income. The substitution effect arises because the very existence of the tax changes the relative prices of the taxed goods, and therefore gives an incentive to taxpayers to substitute non-taxed goods for taxed goods. The income effect does not give rise to any efficiency problems; it simply implies that some resources are transferred from taxpayers to the government, and we hope the government will do something useful with the money. But, the change in behavior from the substitution effect causes an economic distortion that does not benefit anyone. That is, when the higher price of a taxed good causes me to substitute to a different non-taxed good purely because of the distorted prices, then I am worse off and the government gets no revenue. This is the source of the loss of economic efficiency from taxation, because people are worse off than they were previously, and by a larger amount than the tax collections themselves. This phenomenon is sometimes called a deadweight loss.

Once I asked my students to react to the following statement on an exam: “People hate taxes because of income effects, but economists hate taxes because of substitution effects.” One student wrote that it was undeniably true because it showed that economists aren’t people! Well, I think at least some economists are also people. However, it is true that people dislike taxes primarily because they don’t like paying money to the government. Economists especially dislike those taxes that cause greater deadweight losses, i.e., taxes that have greater substitution effects.

A land tax is a very unusual tax. It does not carry this deadweight loss because it does not give rise to a substitution effect. No one can make a decision to produce more land or less land, and the fact that land is taxed will not distort economic decisions. If we think of the price of land as the discounted present value of future land rents, a tax that reduces expected future rents will cause the price of land to drop. But the total cost of the land, which is the purchase price plus the tax, remains unchanged. Those who are considering the purchase of land therefore face the same cost before and after the tax: before the tax, they simply pay a single price up front; after the tax, they pay a lower price up front but they know they will also have to pay all the future taxes. There is no substitution effect, only an income effect for those who currently own land, because now they can sell it for less than before. Property taxes that tax both land and buildings, on the other hand, do give rise to substitution effects because they distort the cost of making improvements to the property.

A revenue-neutral shift to land value taxation would reduce other, distortionary taxes. A shift to a more efficient tax can improve economic welfare without a loss in tax collections. This much is well known. What is not well known is the magnitude of this benefit and of the cost to landowners in terms of lower land prices. Conventional wisdom predicts that a shift to an efficient land tax would increase income and output but reduce land prices. This kind of general statement isn’t much help to policy makers. If one is suggesting major changes in a tax system, policy makers need to know whether the benefits and the costs are going to be large or small. My recent Lincoln Institute working paper, “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform,” constructs a model of state economies in the U.S. to help us think about the effects of such changes.

JY: How did you become interested in developing an economic model for land taxation?

TN: A few years ago, Dick Netzer, professor of economics and public administration at New York University, suggested that I look at the implications for the U.S. economy of replacing capital taxes with land value taxes. Most economists know of the Henry George Theorem and recognize that land taxation is efficient, but they associate his ideas with nineteenth-century economic thought. We assume that all the changes in the economy since then, and changes in the economic role of land, have left these ideas inapplicable to contemporary tax systems. So I was quite surprised that my model indicated that substituting a land value tax for capital taxes on a national level would not only be efficient, as expected, but would actually raise the value of many types of land. However, property taxes are state and local taxes, and the U.S. constitution places special impediments to a national property tax, so a land tax would not be possible on a national level. Further, since each state economy is different, the results of substituting land value taxes for other taxes will also vary from state to state.

JY: How can a tax on land increase land prices?

TN: In and of itself, a tax on land does not increase land prices; it actually reduces land prices, because it reduces the discounted present value of land rents. My research does not consider a land value tax in isolation, but as part of a revenue-neutral tax reform that replaces other, distortionary taxes with a land value tax. Lower taxes on capital will increase capital usage, and more intensive use of capital will raise land prices. For example, if constructing a building becomes more profitable because the tax on the building is lowered or eliminated, an investor may be willing to pay a higher price for its components, including the land.

JY: How did you go about estimating the magnitude of these effects?

TN: I developed a general equilibrium model of an economy that uses land, man-made capital and labor in production. A general equilibrium model is one that examines how changes in one kind of market affect all other markets. This model is then applied to different states, as well as to one hypothetical “average” state, to see how various tax reforms that substitute land value taxes for taxes on capital or labor would affect prices and production. The division of capital into land and man-made capital is a departure from standard analysis, which generally looks at capital as a single category.

One critical element is the elasticity of substitution among these factors; that is, the ease with which one can be substituted for another. Technically, it is the percentage change in one factor that results from a 1 percent change in the other. This is the key to efficiency gains from reducing the tax on man-made capital and on labor and increasing the tax on land. A lower tax on man-made capital will increase the use of that capital, which in turn will produce greater output and more hiring of labor. The easier it is to substitute man-made capital and labor for land, the greater the benefit from a switch to land value taxation.

JY: Where do the elasticity numbers come from?

TN: I use a range of estimates drawn from the economic literature. For example, most studies of the substitution between capital and land give elasticity estimates between 0.36 and 1.13. My paper uses the relatively conservative estimates of 0.75, 0.5 and 0.25 as high, medium and low values, and looks at the result under each assumption. This number is then adjusted to reflect the amount of land in the state devoted to farming, on the assumption that farmland is less easily substituted for capital in the production process. I also ask similar questions with regard to substitution between land and labor.

The elasticities of the actual supplies of man-made capital and labor are also crucial. If taxes on them are reduced, how much extra capital and labor will be available as a result of the increased after-tax return? Often in studies of this sort we make what is called a “small open economy assumption.” We assume that the economy we are looking at is small in relation to the rest of the world, and that capital and labor flow freely into and out of the jurisdiction. In that case, the elasticity of supply is infinite. The opposite extreme would be an economy with the equivalent of closed borders, where no capital could enter or leave. In that case the elasticity of supply would be zero. In looking at U.S. states, the small open economy assumption is not completely accurate, and zero elasticity is not accurate either. The right number is somewhere in between. Neither capital nor labor is as mobile internationally as within the U.S., and labor in particular is less mobile across state boundaries than within a state or a small region. The small open economy assumption may be appropriate in some circumstances for smaller states, but we have to introduce more complex assumptions in other cases.

JY: How does your model compute taxes on land and labor and man-made capital? This isn’t a standard classification of taxes.

TN: This is complicated, because it involves payroll taxes, federal and state corporate taxes, federal and state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and so on. So the model looks at all these taxes and makes assumptions about who is paying them to estimate an overall tax rate on labor from all sources—federal, state and local. Similarly, the model estimates an overall tax rate on land and on man-made capital. This allows us to move from an illustrative example in which taxes on labor and capital are replaced by land value taxes to considering changes in real-world taxes, which of course are never based solely on labor or capital.

JY: How do you represent the shift in taxes from labor and man-made capital to land?

TN: This is a hypothetical policy experiment in the model. Suppose, for example, you wanted to eliminate all sales taxes in a revenue-neutral way, making up the lost collections through a land value tax. Sales taxes are the average state’s largest revenue source, so this shift would be quite ambitious. The model shows what would happen under various elasticities of substitution and elasticities of supply, as described above. The tables in the paper show what land tax would be necessary to maintain revenue, and the changes in capital investment and land prices that would result.

JY: How do you move from the hypothetical average state to the 50 individual states?

TN: You have to begin by asking what factors might cause states to have different experiences with land value taxation. We consider each state’s taxes, because the benefits of shifting to a more efficient system will vary according to how much current taxes distort economic choices. Some states have no income taxes. Some states tax property heavily, while others tax sales heavily. The other critical component concerns the state’s sources of income—how they are divided among land, labor and man-made capital. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports income from various sources by state, but does not account separately for income from land. For that information we draw on the Census of Agriculture data on the amount and market value of farmland to estimate an income figure.

JY: What kinds of results did you obtain?

TN: Since taxation of land is always economically efficient, and since taxation of other factors is always economically inefficient, a shift to land taxes always increases capital, income and labor use. For the “typical” state it seems that most of the simulated tax reforms are feasible, particularly those that reduce taxes on capital. A 20 percent cut in the sales tax, for instance, requires a nearly 24 percent increase in the tax on land, while a similar cut in property taxes requires virtually no change (0.2 percent) in the tax on land. Even a complete elimination of the state and local property tax calls for only a 23 percent increase in the tax on land, while an elimination of the sales tax would require a whopping 131 percent increase. Landowners would be deeply and adversely impacted by reforms that cut the sales tax (losing up to two-thirds of their wealth under a complete elimination of the sales tax), while they would barely feel the impact of most reforms focused on the property tax. They would experience at most a 7 percent decline in their wealth under the complete elimination of the property tax, and an actual increase in their wealth for less dramatic property tax reforms.

But these results differ substantially by state. For instance, the percentage change in the tax on land required to maintain constant state and local government revenues as taxes on capital are eliminated ranges from -1.91 percent to over 104 percent. Similarly, the impact on land prices varies greatly, with prices barely declining (or even increasing) in some states while falling by as much as 85 percent in others. While the elimination of all state and local taxes on capital is therefore technically feasible in all states, it is clearly politically more feasible in some states than in others. Overall, of course, replacing distortionary taxes with nondistortionary taxes on land always brings growth in the employment of capital and labor and increases output—but the size of these impacts also varies greatly. Given that the main political hurdle to land taxation is the expected adverse impact on landowners, these results seem to indicate that, as in the case of the “typical” state, such reforms should emphasize the simultaneous reduction in taxes such as the corporate income tax or the property tax.

JY: What do you take as the central lessons of this work?

TN: Several broad lessons emerge from the analysis of a typical state. First, elasticity assumptions are crucial to the exercise of predicting the likely impact of tax reforms. Second, under elasticity assumptions that are both plausible and relatively conservative, this model predicts that some types of tax reforms are more likely to succeed than others. In particular, tax reforms that reduce taxation of capital in favor of land taxation will have more positive general welfare implications while minimizing the losses to landowners. So policy makers might consider reforming corporate income and property taxes rather than sales and personal income taxes. Third, since elasticities tend to be lower in the short run, it is likely that some of the positive gains of tax reforms that reduce distortionary taxes in favor of land taxes will emerge only with time.

The most striking lesson from simulating tax reforms for the 50 different states is how greatly results can vary depending on underlying economic conditions and current tax policies in those states. Thus, far from arriving at “the answer” regarding the impact of land tax reforms, this study suggests that such answers are likely to differ greatly depending on the context in which the reforms are undertaken. Reforms that raise the tax on land are likely to be more effective the larger the size of the reform, the higher the initial distortionary taxes in the state, and the lower the current level of state income. And, reforms are more likely to be politically feasible (in the sense of not causing great declines in land values) when they involve reductions in taxes on capital.

The idea that land value taxation is unrealistic or would drive land prices into negative numbers is based on a static view of the economy, where no one responds to tax changes by substituting one factor for another. Once you accept that behavior will change in response to taxes, that static view no longer applies. Under these fairly conservative assumptions, tax reforms that use land taxes to eliminate entire classes of distortionary taxes are economically feasible in virtually all states. This work shows that, far from being quaint or outmoded, the idea of taxing land value is quite relevant to the contemporary policy debate.

Working Paper Information: Thomas Nechyba. 2001. “Prospects for Land Rent Taxes in State and Local Tax Reform.” 70 pages. The complete paper is posted on the Lincoln Institute website at www.lincolninst.edu and may be downloaded for free.

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.

Claudia De Cesare es asesora en materia de impuesto predial para la Secretaría de Finanzas del municipio brasileño de Porto Alegre y se desempeña como docente del área de valoración y tributación predial en el programa de posgrado de la Universidad Federal de Río Grande do Sul en Puerto Alegre. Lleva más de cinco años participando en el diseño de cursos y desempeñándose como instructora en el Programa para América Latina del Instituto Lincoln. Además pertenece al consejo asesor del Instituto Internacional de Impuesto predial (IPTI) y se desempeñó como directora técnica del Instituto Brasileño de Avalúos y Peritaje (IBAPE).

Land Lines: Porto Alegre goza de renombre internacional por su innovadora administración local democrática. ¿Qué hace única a esta ciudad en comparación con otras en Brasil o América Latina?

Claudia De Cesare: En efecto, Porto Alegre ha sido pionera en muchas acciones de la administración pública, entre las que se encuentran: el uso del impuesto predial como instrumento para la recuperación de plusvalías, la venta de los derechos de construcción (solo criado), el uso de los derechos de construcción en lugar de dinero en efectivo para pagar las expropiaciones de bienes raíces y la recaudación de rentas a cambio del uso de espacio público para redes de infraestructura, como son las de telecomunicaciones, de televisión por cable y de gas. Por ejemplo, cinco años antes de la aprobación de la legislación nacional del Estatuto de la Ciudad que reglamentaba el uso de tasas progresivas para el impuesto predial, Porto Alegre había aprobado una legislación local en esa materia. Si bien la Corte Suprema posteriormente falló en contra de esta medida local y a favor de la necesidad de una legislación nacional, la ciudad ha jugado un papel protagónico en la promoción del debate sobre muchos temas controvertidos, como son los derechos privados, los derechos de propiedad y los intereses públicos.

Creo que entre las razones que han hecho posibles estas innovaciones en Porto Alegre están una clara definición de las políticas y los objetivos por lograr, así como las “agallas” de los dirigentes locales para afrontar los problemas, incluso cuando ello pueda provocar conflictos. En los funcionarios públicos ha prevalecido la visión de que la ciudad debe planearse de forma democrática para beneficio de la comunidad en general y la convicción de que los bienes públicos deben tomarse con seriedad. No todas las iniciativas han tenido éxito, pero los ciudadanos ahora entienden mejor las responsabilidades y limitaciones del gobierno local. El hecho de que un partido político, en este caso el Partido de los Trabajadores (PT), resultara elegido para conducir el gobierno de la ciudad durante más de 15 años consecutivos también contribuyó a la continuidad y coherencia de estas medidas públicas. Este tipo de legado político es bastante inusual en Brasil y en América Latina en general.

LL: ¿Cómo ha afectado esta atmósfera proactiva la administración del impuesto predial?

CD: Podemos identificar dos períodos en lo que respecta al comportamiento del impuesto predial en Porto Alegre. Antes de 1989, los ingresos locales provenientes del impuesto predial seguían el mismo patrón que en el resto de América Latina. Era más bien simbólico, caracterizado por un bajo grado de esfuerzo en la administración, negligencia en la recaudación de los impuestos locales y dependencia extrema de las transferencias de ingresos desde la instancia nacional y estatal. Luego de reformas radicales en el impuesto predial que modificaron las políticas de exención, introdujeron tasas progresivas y estipularon una nueva lista de avalúo, la tasa de recaudación del impuesto predial aumentó en más del 300% en los primeros dos años. Una amplia campaña educativa pública hacía hincapié en los argumentos para pagar regularmente el impuesto predial, la importancia de dicho impuesto para la dotación de servicios públicos y las razones por las que las autoridades locales no tolerarían la evasión fiscal.

Un cambio en la actitud por parte del gobierno de la ciudad condujo asimismo a una aplicación más eficaz de la ley en lo que respecta a los pagos del impuesto predial y las medidas jurídicas para abordar el problema de la evasión fiscal o las disputas sobre los avalúos. Se dejó claro que no habría amnistía para las deudas por concepto de impuesto predial. El proceso de presupuesto participativo igualmente contribuyó a la rehabilitación del impuesto predial en Porto Alegre, ya que aumentó la confianza general en la administración pública (véase el artículo de Goldsmith y Vainer, de 2001). Desde principios de los años 1990, las rentas anuales recaudadas por concepto de impuesto predial se han mantenido estables y representan casi el 0,95% del PIB local. En comparación, en la esfera nacional, el impuesto predial apenas representa aproximadamente el 0,5% del PIB. No se han realizado mejoras subsecuentes en el impuesto predial, básicamente porque el poder legislativo ha rechazado varias propuestas tanto para reformas como para revisiones drásticas.

LL: ¿Qué importancia tiene el impuesto predial para América Latina?

CD: Aunque la respuesta sencilla a esa pregunta es “depende de cada país”, este impuesto no es una fuente significativa de ingresos en ningún país latinoamericano, si bien en la mayoría de los países los sistemas de impuesto predial llevan tiempo establecidos. Sólo en Argentina y Uruguay las rentas provenientes del impuesto predial representan más del 1% del PIB. En Brasil el resultado promedio se acerca al 0,5% y en México y Costa Rica se ubica alrededor del 0,3% del PIB. Más aún, en cifras relativas, existe una gran variabilidad en la importancia del impuesto predial en los países y ciudades que no se explica directamente por el PIB local ni el tamaño de la población. Parte de los resultados depende de la voluntad política, la cual varía enormemente de una ciudad a otra.

LL: En su opinión, ¿cuáles son los principales puntos controvertidos en lo que refiere a la recaudación del impuesto predial?

CD: Diría que entre los puntos controvertidos se encuentran los objetivos reales por lograr con este impuesto, el grado de universalidad en su implementación, los cambios que se necesitan para tomar en cuenta las inquietudes sociales, económicas y culturales, y la distribución de la carga tributaria para reglamentar el impuesto según la capacidad de pago. Con respecto a la capacidad de pago, sobre todo en Brasil, hay mucha discusión sobre la aplicación de tasas progresivas que varían según la cuantía de los avalúos. La cuestión subyacente pudiera estar en lo simple que debiera ser el sistema.

Otras cuestiones tienen que ver con la falta de consenso acerca de la transparencia del sistema, la autonomía local frente al sistema nacional de recaudación de impuestos y la inestabilidad política y económica en general que afecta los mapas del valor de las propiedades y otros datos. Más aún, la divulgación pública de información sobre el impuesto predial, como son las características de las propiedades individuales, los valores estimados en los avalúos y los pagos anuales del impuesto, no siempre se considera segura.

LL: ¿Qué se necesitaría para mejorar la recaudación del impuesto predial?

CD: Según mi experiencia, el éxito en la aplicación del impuesto predial depende de una combinación de políticas fiscales adecuadas, un marco jurídico coherente para la recaudación de los impuestos y una estructura administrativa eficaz. Por ejemplo, es probable que la aplicación de (altas) tasas confiscatorias en predios vacantes para promover el desarrollo urbanístico más bien estimule la evasión de impuestos. Por otra parte, son indispensables la voluntad política y la capacidad de negociación con los actores para introducir reformas o revisiones en la administración tributaria. Probablemente el índice de recaudación mejorará cuando los contribuyentes vean más claramente la conexión entre los servicios públicos y las rentas recaudadas por concepto de impuesto predial. En otras palabras, la función del impuesto predial mejoraría si la comunidad está acostumbrada a pagar dicho impuesto y entiende su efecto en la mejora de los servicios públicos. Finalmente, con una tendencia hacia una cultura fiscal participativa –en la cual la comunidad se involucra en las decisiones sobre la recaudación de impuestos y los gastos públicos– se podría aumentar la aceptación del impuesto, lo que facilitaría la recaudación.

LL: ¿Qué está cambiando en la región que ejerza influencia sobre las posibilidades de reforma fiscal?

CD: Creo que actualmente los administradores tributarios entienden y se interesan más en el impuesto predial. Están conscientes de la necesidad apremiante de aumentar las rentas a través de una mejor aplicación del impuesto, a pesar de los desafíos que plantean su alta visibilidad y sus antecedentes históricos de funcionamiento deficiente. Asimismo saben de la necesidad de romper este paradigma, en relación tanto con las expectativas de los contribuyentes como con el papel que juega el impuesto predial dentro del sistema tributario nacional. Varias experiencias aisladas, pero prometedoras, han dejado en claro que la reforma del impuesto predial en América Latina es viable, si bien requiere voluntad política, innovación y disposición para superar las barreras s vislumbradas en su implementación.

LL: ¿Cuáles son las principales diferencias en el entorno del impuesto predial de América Latina en comparación con Norteamérica?

CD: Los sistemas de Estados Unidos y Canadá ciertamente son más maduros y transparentes que la mayoría de los sistemas latinoamericanos, más que todo porque la información está disponible y es de dominio público y porque existe fácil acceso a la tecnología. Algunas de las diferencias más importantes observadas en América Latina son los patrones de ocupación ilegal, la falta de información confiable sobre la tenencia de la tierra, el gran número de transacciones inmobiliarias informales y el predominio de la construcción progresiva de viviendas. Todas estas características del uso del suelo en América Latina plantean desafíos distintos para diseñar procedimientos para hacer los avalúos inmobiliarios y administrar una política tributaria justa y coherente. En cuanto al uso de la tecnología en la administración del impuesto predial, el año pasado supe de un sistema catastral en México que es tan eficaz como los mejores sistemas usados en Estados Unidos. No obstante, es un caso atípico; existe gran variación en el uso de tecnología entre las distintas autoridades locales en América Latina.

LL: Con base en su investigación, ¿cuáles son algunos de los efectos positivos y negativos de cambiar a un sistema tributario basado en el valor del suelo para las propiedades residenciales?

CD: La conclusión de mi estudio fue bastante inesperada, ya que la hipótesis respaldaba el argumento opuesto. A partir de una base de datos de Porto Alegre, descubrí que el resultado principal de usar el valor del suelo como base del impuesto era la tendencia hacia mayor regresión en la distribución de la carga tributaria, por lo que las viviendas de menor precio quedaban claramente identificadas como los posibles perdedores. El hecho de que parte de la carga tributaria fuera transferida de las propiedades de precio alto a las de precio más bajo es un verdadero motivo de preocupación. No obstante, es necesario profundizar la investigación para solucionar las imperfecciones en el modelo de avalúo usado para estimar el valor del suelo y examinar otras bases de datos. En todo caso, se identificó la falta de conocimientos sobre el uso del valor del suelo como base del impuesto y sus ventajas predecibles como principal obstáculo para su aplicación en Brasil.

LL: ¿Cómo usa usted diversos instrumentos y técnicas de valoración para determinar el valor del suelo?

CD: Uno de los argumentos en contra del uso del valor del suelo como base del impuesto es la gran dificultad para estimar el valor de los predios con mejoras. En mi estudio, se descubrió que era viable usar modelos hedonistas (MRA) para estimar el valor del suelo. Para compensar la falta de datos sobre los predios no urbanizados en áreas sumamente desarrolladas (áreas centrales y distritos comerciales), utilicé un número razonable de viviendas que fueron vendidas para nuevos desarrollos urbanísticos. El valor de mercado de estas viviendas se determinó enteramente a través del potencial que tenía el predio para desarrollo futuro, así como de las características del vecindario. En consecuencia, los hallazgos respaldan la hipótesis de que posibles dificultades en el avalúo no impiden usar el valor del suelo como base para el impuesto predial, por lo menos en el caso de Porto Alegre. No obstante, se observó un grado menor de uniformidad en los avalúos de predios no desarrollados, puesto que los precios de los predios tienden a sufrir fuertes variaciones fortuitas y están muy influenciados por las características particulares del comprador y el vendedor involucrados en cada transacción.

LL: ¿Cuáles son, en su opinión, los mayores desafíos que enfrenta América Latina en los próximos cinco años?

CD: Como dije antes, uno de los mayores desafíos es lograr sistemas de impuestos prediales más eficaces. Creo que la promoción e implementación de programas nacionales de mejoramiento del impuesto predial es indispensable para fortalecer dicho impuesto en la esfera local. En un tono más personal, mi objetivo es crear un sistema basado en Internet para recabar y difundir información sobre el impuesto predial en América Latina, lo que permitiría hacer análisis comparativos entre las municipalidades según criterios predefinidos. Con este sistema los administradores del impuesto predial llenarían los datos sobre el funcionamiento de dicho impuesto de manera regular, lo que haría posible tener evaluaciones constantes. Sería un gran avance para el proyecto, ahora con respaldo del Instituto Lincoln, el cual utiliza actualmente cuestionarios convencionales para monitorear la información sobre el impuesto predial en la región.

Referencia

Goldsmith, William W. y Carlos B. Vainer. 2001. Presupuesto participativo y políticas de poderes en Porto Alegre. Publicado en el volumen 13 (1) de la revista Land Lines: 7–9.

Over the past decade of transition from communist to market economies, property taxation has taken on economic, political and legal importance as the countries in Central and Eastern Europe have developed new fiscal policies and new approaches to property rights. Taxes on land and buildings have served not only as revenue instruments but also as adjuncts to decentralization and privatization. In spite of the complex and varied national differences in this region, a number of common issues have emerged in regard to property-based taxes.

A period of transition places a premium on revenue sources that impose a minimum burden on the functioning of nascent market economies. Many of these postcommunist nations seek to strengthen local government, and all must adjust their tax systems to account for emerging markets for land and buildings at a time when state administrative capacity is challenged by the introduction of new income and consumption taxes. There is often strong support for retaining a public interest in land as a fixed, nonrenewable element of the common heritage which, once sold, cannot be reproduced. This sentiment coexists with an equally strong impetus for development of private business and private ownership of property. Each of these concerns raises special questions with regard to the role of land and building taxes in the transition.

Such taxes on land and buildings have already been designated as local revenue sources in many nations of Central and Eastern Europe. As a tax base that cannot relocate in response to taxation, real property permits an independent local revenue source. Times of fiscal stringency at national government levels dramatize the importance of such revenue for local governmental autonomy. Moreover, the goal of eventual international integration through the European Union and other trade arenas encourages development of taxes not subject to international competition.

Two primary difficulties confront efforts to implement land and building taxes in these countries. First, in the absence of developed property markets, the tax base requires a choice among formulary values, price approximations, and non-value means of allocating the tax burden. Second, times of financial hardship present special problems in imposing taxes on assets that do not produce income with which to pay the tax. This dilemma has left many property taxes at nominal levels.

These problems are closely related because the lack of reliable market prices, together with the legacy of officially determined price levels, can encourage legislation that assigns specific, sometimes arbitrary values to various classes of property for tax purposes. Given these difficulties, it is particularly significant that many of these nations have either adopted or are seriously considering some form of value-based taxation of immovable property as a source of local government finance.

The Case of Lithuania

Since declaring its independence from the USSR in 1991, the Republic of Lithuania has made rapid strides in economic reforms, privatization and government reorganization. Its plans for market value-based taxation of land and buildings reflect the country’s transition to a market economy and private ownership of property. Municipalities will receive the revenues from the new tax and will have the power to choose the tax rate, subject to an upper limit set by the national government. The Lithuanian Parliament has recently prepared draft legislation for this tax which assigns responsibility for developing a valuation system to the State Land Cadastre and Register (SLCR).

The SLCR was created in 1997 to consolidate a number of functions: registration of property rights, maintenance of a cadastre of property information, and valuation of real property for public purposes, including taxation. Since then the agency has organized a central data bank for legally registered property rights, land and building information, and Geographic Information System (GIS) maps. The data bank currently holds information on more than four million land parcels and structures, and it is linked to mortgage and other related registers and to branch offices throughout the country.

The proposed market value-based real property tax will replace two existing taxes on real property commonly found in post-Soviet systems: a land tax on privately owned land and a property tax on buildings and other property (not including land) owned by corporate entities, enterprises and organizations. Taxable values are currently set by the SLCR through application of varying “coefficients” that adjust base prices to reflect land use and location. The resulting values do not reflect current market prices. The tax rate of 1.5 percent of the taxable value for land and 1 percent of the taxable value of property yielded represent approximately 7 percent of local budgets and 2.5 percent of the national budget in 2000.

Lithuania’s growing demand for market-based property valuation data requires an increase in professional appraisal skills and experience with assessment administration. To address these needs, an Association of Property Valuers and a system of professional certification were established in the mid-1990s, in collaboration with other international valuation associations. Lithuania has also joined Estonia and Latvia in publishing periodic reviews of real estate markets in the Baltic states. Information regarding market activity is posted on the SLCR’s website www.kada.lt.

Lincoln Course

The Lincoln Institute has taught courses on property taxation in transition countries for nearly a decade, and in February the Institute collaborated with SLCR to develop a curriculum for seven senior public officials from Lithuania. The week-long program was based on the course that the Institute presented, in cooperation with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius in December 1997, for government officials from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Recognizing the importance of this year’s program to Lithuanian public policy, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provided support for the delegation’s travel to Cambridge.

The program offered a policy-oriented analysis of issues relating to market-based tax systems. It included guidance in developing a strategic plan and a legal and administrative framework for a computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) system suitable to Lithuania. Technical subjects were presented in the context of larger economic and political issues in land and property taxation. The course combined lectures, discussions with experienced practitioners, case studies, and field visits to state and local agencies in Massachusetts. Lectures addressing introductory, policy-focused subjects were supplemented by more specialized presentations covering market value appraisal techniques, mass appraisal, CAMA and tax law.

The Lincoln Institute will offer similar courses to public officials from other transition countries, and is continuing to develop other educational programs with Lithuania and its Baltic neighbors.

Jane H. Malme is an attorney and a fellow of the Lincoln Institute in the Program on Taxation of Land and Buildings. She has developed and taught courses on property taxation and has been a legal advisor to public finance officials in Central and Eastern Europe. She is co-editor with Joan Youngman of The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition: Case Studies, a book being published in 2001 by the World Bank.

Public officials from Lithuania and Lincoln Institute faculty members met at Lincoln House in February to learn from each other about market value-based taxation policy and plans for introducing property taxation in Lithuania.

Delegates from Lithuania: Arturas Baksinskas, Vice-Minister of Finance; Dalia Bardauskiene, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Rural and Urban Development and Planning; Algirdas Butkevicius, Member of Parliament on Budget and Finance Committee; Rimantas Ramanauskas, First Deputy Director, SLCR; Albina Aleksiene, Advisor to the General Director on Property Valuation, SLCR; Arvydas Bagdonavicius, Deputy Director, SLCR; Algimantas Mikenas, Deputy Head of Property Valuation and Market Research Department, SLCR.

Lincoln Institute Faculty: Joan Youngman, Senior Fellow and Director, Lincoln Institute Tax Program; Jane Malme, Fellow, Lincoln Institute Tax Program; Dennis Robinson, Vice President, Lincoln Institute; Richard Almy and Robert Gloudemans, partners, Almy, Gloudemans, Jacobs and Denne , LaGrange, Illinois; John Charman, Consultant Valuation Surveyor, London; David Davies, Director of Information Technology, Massachusetts Department of Revenue; Jeffrey Epstein, Consultant, Quincy, Massachusetts; Sally Powers, Former Director of Assessment, City of Cambridge.

One of the major objectives of the Lincoln Institute is to enhance discussion and debate on issues of land and tax policy. We accomplish this objective in part by sponsoring courses that bring stakeholders together at Lincoln House or other classroom locations. We believe these programs that permit face-to-face interaction can play a major role in advancing the debate and encouraging participants to share their ideas directly. But, our outreach through classroom courses can reach only a limited number of participants each year.

To supplement these programs, the Institute has developed other mechanisms for expanding our outreach and disseminating knowledge of critical land and tax policy issues. I would like to highlight some of these efforts, starting with recognizing the enthusiastic response of the readers of this publication, Land Lines. The articles published in each quarterly issue reflect the Institute’s involvement in education and research activities around the world and offer insights into our work on a wide range of matters. From the introduction of new tools and partnerships to improve planning in the U.S., to the development of value capture mechanisms in Latin America or the design of land tax programs in China and other transitional economies, Land Lines is the Institute’s primary publication for telling our story.

Other products of our publications program contribute to informing the debate as well. We publish books and policy focus reports based on research supported by the Institute, often in the form of edited volumes of papers presented at seminars or conferences. Working papers completed by Institute faculty and researchers are posted on our Web site so the results can be circulated in the public domain as quickly as possible. Currently more than 700 working papers, research reports and newsletter articles are posted, and many of them are available in Spanish or Chinese as well as in English. Each month thousands of visitors from around the world download material from our site.

The Web site also features two forms of online education. Many of our past course materials are available as complete documents that can be downloaded, and the Institute offers dynamic Internet-based courses on Lincoln Education Online (LEO), including Planning Fundamentals and Introduction to New England Forests. They provide lessons, self-assessment quizzes and additional resources for planning commissioners, citizens and other users who need information on tools and techniques.

Another effort to broaden the discussion of land and tax policy issues is the documentary film and outreach project known as Making Sense of Place. The first film, Phoenix: The Urban Desert, has been broadcast on television and shown in many community meetings throughout Arizona, and we are developing a second film about land use, growth and property tax issues confronting Cleveland, Ohio.

All of these non-classroom activities illustrate our commitment to reach out to many different audiences, to provide information and expertise that can make discussions about land and tax policy more valuable, and to help effect better decision making.

The property tax in Indiana has long generated considerable public policy debate, centering on the methods prescribed by the state to determine property values. Most states use some form of market value as the assessment standard, but Indiana relies on “true tax value.” Indiana law defines this as “the value determined under the rules of the State Board of Tax Commissioners,” and it declares that “true tax value does not mean fair market value.”

A landmark decision by the state Supreme Court in December 1998 ignited new debate over Indiana’s property tax system. The Court ruled that the tables used in the 1995 assessment manual lacked “meaningful reference to property wealth,” did not contain “objectively verifiable data,” and violated the state constitution. Although the legal opinion contained language suggesting approval of the use of market-derived data, the Court fell short of mandating a system based strictly on market value.

Almost two years have passed since this ruling, but minimal progress has been made in implementing a more equitable and uniform assessment system. Policy makers have focused almost exclusively on the projected tax shifts, especially those to homeowners, under market-derived valuation methods, and have all but ignored the underlying inequities that plague Indiana’s assessment system.

This article reviews the essential features of Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems, describes recent reform efforts, and identifies critical reform issues, apart from the tax shifts, that need to be addressed.

Property Tax and Assessment Systems

Property Tax Revenues. In 1999, the property tax raised more than $4.6 billion, nearly all of it generated locally and used for local services, especially K-12 public education. The property tax is the largest revenue source in Indiana, generating more revenue in 1999 than federal funds ($3.8 billion), individual income taxes ($3.7 billion), and sales and use taxes ($3.4 billion). Together, these four revenue sources account for nearly 80 percent of total state and local revenue (see Figure 1).

Nearly 65 percent of the total property tax levy in 1999 was paid by the business community, including commercial, industrial, utility, and agricultural property (see Figure 2). Personal property accounts for about one-half of the total business property tax burden. Although Indiana’s constitution prohibits unequal property taxation, this relatively high business share demonstrates a de facto classification system that allocates a majority of the property tax burden to non-voting entities.

Local Administration. The primary assessing jurisdiction in Indiana is the township. Each of the state’s 1,008 townships elects either a full- or part-time assessor, depending on population; nearly 85 percent of these assessors are part-time. County assessors are elected in each of the state’s 92 counties. As a general rule, the county assessor has a greater role when townships have more part-time assessors, because the county assessor reviews both personal property and real estate assessments.

State Administration. The State Board of Tax Commissioners (Tax Board), the first property tax commission of its kind in the nation, is primarily responsible for promulgating assessment rules and regulations for both real and personal property. Additionally, the Tax Board hears property tax appeals, approves local government budgets, provides assessor training, and maintains a comprehensive local government database.

Assessment Standards. Real and personal property are assessed at one-third of true tax value (TTV). The TTV of improved real property is based on a cost approach, but neither the replacement costs nor the depreciation schedules are market derived. In fact, when compared to the market, Indiana’s TTVs vary widely, not only between property classes (i.e., residential, business, utility and agricultural) but within classes as well.

The TTV of personal property is based on original acquisition cost, but, like the TTV of real property, relies on depreciation schedules that bear little relationship to the market. Most business assets receive accelerated depreciation of 40 to 60 percent in the first few years. However, older assets are subject to a relatively high residual value of 30 percent of original cost. Business inventory also is based on its original cost and is subject to the same floor, but it receives a 35 percent assessment deduction.

Indiana law provides that the TTV of land is to be based on market value, but recent studies have found that land assessments are significantly less than market value. Residential land values are roughly 40 percent of market value. The TTV of farmland is based on a use value of $495 per acre, adjusted for soil productivity, resulting in an assessment that is also well below market value.

Assessment Cycle. Indiana employs two different assessment cycles. Personal property is self-assessed annually, while real property reassessment is both infrequent and irregular. The last general reassessment of real property took effect in March 1995. The previous reassessment occurred in 1989, and reassessments generally took effect every ten years before then. The next general reassessment of real property has been delayed from March 1999 until at least March 2002.

Assessment Reform

Major state reform efforts, whether in welfare programs, school funding or tax policy, tend be driven by either fiscal distress or judicial mandates, but the political process dictates the speed of reform. This same pattern holds true for tax reform to achieve a more equitable and uniform assessment system in Indiana, as policy makers have been slow to respond to judicial mandates.

Judicial Efforts. The Indiana Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John is widely considered to be the most significant judicial decision on taxation in the state’s history. The Supreme Court affirmed the state Tax Court’s decision that the 1995 real property assessment manual violated the state constitution’s requirement that the Indiana General Assembly provide for “. . . a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation.”

The Supreme Court found these mandates of uniformity and equality were not met because the manual’s cost schedules were arbitrary, did not reflect actual construction costs, and were not based on “objectively verifiable” data. Unlike the Tax Court, however, the Supreme Court did not mandate a strict market value system. Rather, it ruled that any departures from market value must result in assessments that are “substantially uniform and equal based on property wealth.”

Because executive and legislative policy makers have been slow to respond to this mandate, the Tax Court has become increasingly assertive in the pursuit of an equitable assessment system. Recently, the Tax Court established certain dates for both the adoption (June 2001) and implementation (March 2002) of constitutional assessment regulations, required the Tax Board to submit monthly progress reports, and announced that an independent reassessment commissioner would be appointed if the Tax Board’s efforts were “deficient in any meaningful way.”

Executive Efforts. To carry out its duty to ensure uniformity and equality of property assessment and taxation, the Indiana General Assembly has delegated the development and oversight of the state’s assessment system to the State Tax Board, an executive agency under the governor. This agency has the unenviable task of creating a new assessment system that will likely cause considerable shifts in tax burdens. Delays have further politicized this process, and assessment reform and tax burden shifts have become the focus of the November 2000 general election.

The Tax Board has taken steps to comply with the Supreme Court decision. The Board’s 1999 proposed real property assessment manual incorporated market-derived cost tables for all property classes. Residential depreciation schedules also were based on the market, and the base value of agricultural land was increased from $495 to $1,050 an acre.

Unfortunately, other actions by the Tax Board and the inaction of the executive branch may have offset these improvements. For example, the proposed manual provided a residential assessment reduction, or shelter allowance. The Tax Board argued that basic shelter is not property wealth, since other assets cannot substitute for shelter. A shelter allowance was calculated for each county, ranging in value between $16,000 and $22,686, to be deducted from residential property assessments. This unique valuation method would reduce the predicted residential tax shift from 33 to 7 percent and could be considered a form of classification. Viewing this shift as unacceptable, the governor did not approve the 1999 proposed real estate manual, illustrating the highly politicized nature of assessment reform.

Legislative Efforts. Anticipating a major court decision, the 1997 Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation that many considered the first step toward significant assessment reform. It increased assessor training requirements, improved the local and state appeals process, and required the state to establish level of assessment and uniformity standards and to conduct equalization studies. Again, these improvements may have been offset by other legislative initiatives. The 1997 legislation allows township assessors to establish land values, an authority that previously rested with county land commissions. Current data indicates that these township land values are far from market values, and it is unlikely that the large number of part-time township assessors can establish more accurate land values in the future.

The recently enacted equalization legislation is also problematic. Most states equalize assessments in the first year that reassessment takes effect, to provide immediate mitigation for unequal assessment. Current Indiana law delays equalization for at least two years following the effective date of reassessment.

Conclusion

It comes as no surprise that projected property tax shifts have become the focal point of both assessment reform efforts and the 2000 general election. The highly politicized debate over “acceptable” tax burden shifts has distracted policy makers from addressing reform of assessment regulations. While market-derived assessment manuals represent a significant step, this alone will not result in a more uniform and equitable assessment system. Policy makers must also consider the following issues:

1. Taxpayer equity cannot be measured by interclass tax shifts at the county level alone. Assessment reform will produce dramatic intraclass and intracounty tax shifts, but these shifts have been discussed only as they relate to residential property. Yet, current data indicates that equally significant shifts will occur within other property classes, especially business property.

2. The current administrative structure of the state’s assessment system may not be compatible with an equitable and uniform assessment system. Restructuring the Tax Board could help insulate it from the political consequences of its oversight function. At the local level, policy makers should consider streamlining the roles of local assessors and identifying alternative assessment jurisdiction models based on population, parcel counts, and/or assessed value.

3. Adoption and enforcement of strict equalization standards may be the most significant step in the reform process.

4. The Indiana assessment community should take further steps to increase the level of assessor training and expand assessor qualification requirements. Policy makers also should consider appointment of local assessors by the county executive.

5. Indiana land assessments have been and continue to be well below market value. This underlying problem must be rectified through assessor training, more diligent state oversight, and implementation of the equalization process.

These issues must be addressed in order to remedy the inequities currently plaguing Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems.

____________

Frank Kelly and Jeff Wuensch are cofounders of the Nexus Group, an Indiana-based research firm specializing in property taxation. Kelly is also assistant professor of economics at Butler University and Indiana University; he previously served as the senior tax analyst for the Indiana State Tax Board. Wuensch previously worked as director of tax review at the Indiana State Tax Board and at the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute. Kelly, Wuensch and Thomas Hamilton, assistant professor of real estate in the Department of Finance at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, are joint recipients of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation from the Lincoln Institute. This article is based on their study of Indiana’s property tax system as part of their Fellowship project.

Total state and local revenue: Table/Chart 1 Sources are the Indiana State Tax Board and Indiana State Budget Agency Who pays the property tax: Table/Chart 2 Source is the Indiana State Tax Board.

Over the past decade, the Lincoln Institute has developed and presented many courses on the interaction of land and tax policies and on the development of value-based land and real property taxation for policy makers and senior government officials from countries transitioning to market economies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics. These courses address the economic and legal basis for value-based taxes as well as practical problems in their implementation.

As private property markets evolve, property changes hands and new wealth is invested in real estate. The introduction of ad valorem taxation is a natural step in the development of market-based economies. With economic growth and development, the revenue capacity of a value-based tax increases, and the tax can contribute to other important transition objectives such as privatization, government decentralization, infrastructure improvement and efficient land use. Nevertheless, the introduction of value-based taxation confronts both political and practical difficulties in developing an appropriate legal and administrative framework, as well as effective valuation, appeals and information systems.

The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been in the forefront of implementing value-based taxes on land (Malme and Youngman 2001). Estonia was the first of these new independent states to recognize the benefits of land taxation and to introduce a value-based land tax in 1993, followed by Latvia in 1998. Lithuania has been a leader in integrating and unifying real property cadastral, registration and valuation systems to strengthen nascent real estate markets and support real property taxation. Progress toward value-based taxation in Lithuania began with the integration of real property administrative units and the development of an automated central database of real property information in a self-funded state enterprise known as the State Land Cadastre and Register (SLCR). In 2001 the Ministry of Finance funded the SLCR to plan and develop a mass valuation system in preparation for the anticipated passage of laws that will introduce value-based taxation of real property throughout Lithuania. The first phase of this program was the development of land value maps that were completed and made public in 2003.

The Lincoln Institute and SLCR (renamed the Lithuanian State Enterprise Centre of Registers [SECR] in 2002) have worked collaboratively since 1997 to offer educational programs and document Lithuania’s progress (Malme 2001; Sabaliauskas and Aleksienė 2002). In 2003 the Institute and SECR developed a new executive course, Introducing a Market Value-Based Mass Appraisal System for Taxation of Real Property, for lawmakers and senior government representatives preparing to implement value-based taxes in other countries experiencing rapid political and economic change.

The course uses Lithuania’s experiences in market valuation as a case study, and SECR executives and specialists join core international faculty in the Institute’s Department of Valuation and Taxation to address the principles, strategies and practical problems raised by mass valuation of real property. The Lithuanian case study demonstrates how those responsible for developing that mass valuation system dealt with the problems they faced.

The first offering of the week-long course was presented in Vilnius, Lithuania, in October 2003 to a delegation from the Russian Federation, led by Alexey Overchuk, deputy chief of the Federal Land Cadastre Service of Russia (see related article). Participants included senior administrators of land valuation boards from various regions of Russia, officials from the federal ministries of Economic Development, Finance and Property Relations, and representatives from private companies involved in valuation system development. Two delegates from the National Cadastral Agency of the Republic of Belarus also participated. This course will be offered again in Vilnius in fall 2004 for a delegation from another country that is undertaking mass valuation for land or real property taxation.

Jane H. Malme is a fellow at the Lincoln Institute. She developed the new course on mass valuation with Lincoln Institute faculty Richard Almy, John Charman and Robert Gloudemans, together with SECR representatives Albina Aleksienė, Arvydas Bagdonavičius, Bronislovas Mikūta, Rimantas Ramanauskas, Antanas Tumelionis and Lidija Zavtrakova.

References

Malme, Jane H. 2001. Market value-based taxation of real property. Land Lines 13(1):8–9.

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

Sabaliauskas, Kestutis, and Albina Aleksienė. 2002. Progress toward value-based taxation of real property in Lithuania. Land Lines 14(4):11–13.

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.

El caso de Mexicali, capital del estado fronterizo de Baja California (México), es ejemplo destacado de una reforma exitosa hecha al sistema fiscal inmobiliario en la década de 1990. En apenas unos cuantos años, el gobierno municipal pudo aumentar las entradas provenientes del gravamen inmobiliario, así como también fortalecer sus finanzas y modernizar sus sistemas catastrales y de recaudación. Más aún, Mexicali llevó a cabo esta reforma adoptando un sistema de tributación sobre el valor de la tierra nunca antes aplicado en México, y los cambios contaron con la aceptación de la ciudadanía. A pesar de los problemas y errores surgidos a lo largo del proceso, esta experiencia ofrece lecciones provechosas a entidades interesadas en emprender reformas futuras del sistema fiscal inmobiliario, en México u otros países.

Consideraciones económicas, políticas y técnicas

Emprender una reforma del sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria no parecía ser tarea fácil ni en Mexicali ni en ninguna parte de México. Desde 1983, el gobierno local ha tenido la responsabilidad de fijar y recaudar los gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria, aunque ciertas responsabilidades aún recaen sobre las autoridades estatales. A lo largo de la década de 1980, tanto la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario como los ingresos municipales en general sufrieron una caída estrepitosa causada por la combinación de una fuerte espiral inflacionaria, la recesión económica, la falta de interés político , y la insuficiente experiencia y capacidad administrativa de los gobiernos municipales, quienes preferían depender de fuentes de participación en los ingresos fiscales.

Como resultado de las mejoras en el rendimiento macroeconómico de la nación, a inicios de los noventa se dieron las condiciones para un cambio en la situación, aunque ciertos factores políticos y técnicos redujeron los incentivos para que muchos gobiernos estatales y municipales iniciaran una reforma fiscal. No obstante, el gobierno federal de Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1989-1994) se lanzó a mejorar las finanzas municipales mediante un programa de modernización catastral impulsado por el Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios (BANOBRAS), un banco de desarrollo público.

Incluso antes de que este programa y otras políticas nacionales comenzaran a influir sobre los gobiernos municipales y estatales, Mexicali tomó la delantera en la reforma al sistema fiscal. En 1989 el presidente municipal electo, Milton Castellanos Gout, entendió la importancia de fortalecer las finanzas municipales y comenzó a trabajar para elevar los ingresos tributarios al comienzo de su mandato. Para actualizar los valores catastrales, contrató los servicios de una empresa privada dirigida por Sergio Flores Peña, graduado en planificación regional y urbana en la Universidad de California en Berkeley. Flores propuso al nuevo presidente abandonar el sistema impositivo de base mixta (construcciones y suelo) y adoptar uno basado exclusivamente en el valor del suelo, y diseñar un modelo matemático para calcular los precios del suelo.

Más que atracción por las creencias teóricas o ideológicas asociadas con un impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra, Castellanos sentía que dicho gravamen era una manera fácil y rápida de aumentar la recaudación de ingresos, y asumió el riesgo político de proponer un Comité Municipal de Catastro integrado por organizaciones de bienes raíces, organizaciones profesionales y representantes de la ciudadanía.

Los resultados fueron espectaculares desde dos puntos de vista: primero que todo, el nuevo impuesto elevó los ingresos rápidamente (ver fig.1); y segundo, no hubo oposición ni política ni legal en contra de las medidas fiscales por parte de los contribuyentes. El aumento de ingresos por concepto de mayores gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria y ventas de bienes raíces ¾la mayor fuente de ingresos municipales¾ permitió al presidente poner en marcha un importante programa de servicios públicos. No obstante, al año siguiente Castellanos decidió disminuir el control fiscal y no actualizar los valores del suelo, lo cual llevó al abandono del modelo matemático que había sido creado originalmente para ese propósito.

Tanto el Comité Municipal de Catastro como los funcionarios gubernamentales que estaban a cargo de la oficina de valuaciones y de catastro se opusieron a fijar los nuevos valores catastrales. Estas personas carecían de la capacidad técnica para manipular el modelo y temían disminuir su poder y control si dejaban el asunto en manos de la empresa consultora privada. Como resultado, se abandonó el modelo matemático y en lo sucesivo se definieron los valores del suelo mediante un proceso de negociación y convenios entre las autoridades locales, los representantes electos y el comité.No obstante, no se modificó el sistema de cálculo del valor catastral de base suelo.

Al mismo tiempo, el gobierno de Castellanos lanzó un programa de modernización catastral con recursos financieros del gobierno federal. Sin embargo, dado que el presidente consideraba que ya se había logrado el objetivo principal de aumentar los ingresos, relegó a un segundo plano la modernización del sistema catastral y no se pudo lograr el mismo éxito.

En las administraciones subsiguientes varió la política de recaudaciones tributarias y modernización catastral. El próximo presidente, Francisco Pérez Tejeda (1992-1995), era miembro del mismo partido político (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI). Durante su primer año de gobierno hubo un descenso en los ingresos por gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria, y los impuestos aumentaron sólo al final de su mandato. Pérez abandonó el programa de modernización catastral, pero mantuvo el sistema de tributación sobre el valor de la tierra.

La siguiente administración estuvo presidida por Eugenio Elourdy (1995-1998), miembro del Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN) quien fue el primer líder de un partido de oposición en Mexicali, aun cuando un miembro del PAN había gobernado en el ámbito estatal de 1989 a 1994. En la administración de Elourdy se actualizaron los valores catastrales, hubo un crecimiento continuo de la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario y se volvió a implementar la modernización catastral. La actual administración de Víctor Hermosillo (1999-2001) está continuando con la reforma catastral.

Evaluación de la experiencia de Mexicali

Sin duda alguna, el proceso de reforma fiscal ha convertido la recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario en la más rápida e importante fuente financiera de los gobiernos municipales. Esta recaudación representa actualmente más del 50 % de los ingresos municipales locales. El rendimiento relativo del gravamen inmobiliario respecto a los ingresos totales de Mexicali está muy por encima de los promedios estatales y nacionales (15,3 % en 1995, comparado con 8,4 % para el estado y 10,3 % para todo el país). Los funcionarios del gobierno municipal que están a cargo de los sistemas catastrales y de valuación están bien preparados, poseen el conocimiento técnico y están conscientes de la necesidad de conducir reformas permanentes dentro del sistema. El ejemplo de Mexicali ha sido ya imitado en el resto del estado de Baja California y en el estado vecino de Baja California Sur.

El caso de Mexicali ofrece lecciones importantes. La primera de todas es que los gravámenes a la propiedad inmobiliaria son fundamentales para fortalecer los gobiernos municipales, no sólo para recaudar ingresos suficientes para el desarrollo urbano, sino también para proporcionar a los funcionarios gubernamentales las destrezas necesarias que les permitan organizar el sistema fiscal de una forma exitosa, legítima y transparente ante los ojos de la ciudadanía.

En segundo lugar, una reforma al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria es algo que requiere visión, liderazgo, y sobretodo, voluntad política y compromiso por parte de los dirigentes. Asimismo, el éxito de una reforma que vaya acompañada por un aumento de impuestos, requiere también contar con una base técnica sólida y con aceptación por parte del público.

En tercer lugar, se demostró la enorme utilidad del impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra para lograr una reforma exitosa en una etapa temprana. Claramente, la razón fundamental para adoptar dicho sistema tuvo que ver más con un abordaje pragmático que con bases o posiciones teóricas sobre diferentes filosofías. Sin embargo, ello no debe impedir que los funcionarios gubernamentales, asesores, expertos y el público en general emprendan un análisis cuidadoso de las diversas consecuencias de tal abordaje en términos de eficiencia económica, justicia y equidad fiscal.

Aunque el sistema de impuesto sobre el valor de la tierra tuvo éxito en el caso de Mexicali, no debe ser visto como una panacea aplicable en todas las situaciones. Es importante reconocer que el impuesto sería muy poco útil sin otras medidas que deben ser consideradas como parte de la reforma al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, tales como modernización catastral, transparencia en la fijación de tasas impositivas y participación del público. Por último, es importante ver las reformas al sistema fiscal sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria en otras ciudades del mundo como procesos integrales, y no como “éxitos” o “fracasos”. Tal como el caso de Mexicali, son experiencias que combinan aciertos y desaciertos. Lejos de ser ejemplo de una reforma perfecta, Mexicali es una buena experiencia de aprendizaje porque demuestra que los cambios sí son posibles incluso cuando no lo parecen.

Manuel Perló Cohen es investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Para este estudio recibió apoyo del Instituto Lincoln. Perló Cohen ha participado en numerosos cursos y seminarios patrocinados por el instituto en varias ciudades de América Latina.

Figura 1. Recaudación del gravamen inmobiliario en Mexicali, 1984-1998

Fuente: Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Tesorería del XVI Ayuntamiento de Mexicali. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica.

Hace más de 50 años, un proceso lento pero fundamental comenzó a transformar el impuesto sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos. Como este proceso se desarrolló a nivel estatal y local, y no a nivel federal, y dado que la adopción casi universal del avalúo preferencial tomó varias décadas, la mayoría de los ciudadanos no son conscientes de que los dueños de parcelas rurales a menudo reciben un tratamiento preferencial. En consecuencia, hoy millones de hectáreas de suelo rural se avalúan muy por debajo de su valor justo de mercado a efectos del impuesto local sobre la propiedad.

Estas modificaciones del impuesto sobre la propiedad comenzaron en Maryland en 1957, cuando la Asamblea General promulgó una ley de avalúo de suelos de uso agrícola. Esta ley estableció que los campos y pastizales se podían avaluar por debajo del precio del mercado, siempre y cuando se “utilizaran activamente” con fines agrícolas. Como prueba de uso agrícola activo, un dueño sólo tiene que demostrar que la propiedad generó US$2.500 o más de ingresos brutos anuales por la venta de productos agrícolas en los últimos años.

Varios factores impulsaron a docenas de gobiernos estatales a emular a Maryland y crear programas de avalúo por valor de uso (use value programs, o UVA) en las décadas de 1960 y 1970. El primero fue la expansión masiva de las regiones metropolitanas de los EE.UU. después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, que provocó la conversión de decenas de millones de hectáreas de suelos agrícolas, ganaderos, forestales y otros suelos rurales a uso residencial y a otros usos no agrícolas. Alig et al. (2003) estima que el área desarrollada del país aumentó más del doble entre 1960 y 1997, de 10,3 a 26,5 millones de hectáreas. La rápida urbanización del suelo rural había llegado antes a Maryland que a otros estados debido a que la población de los condados de Montgomery y Prince George, cerca de la rápidamente creciente capital del país, Washington, DC, se cuadruplicó entre 1940 y 1960.

El segundo factor fue que el suelo agrícola que se encontraba al borde de las áreas metropolitanas aumentó significativamente de precio en las décadas posteriores a la guerra debido a su potencial de desarrollo inmobiliario, por lo que algunos productores rurales se vieron obligados a pagar facturas de impuestos mucho mayores debido al mayor valor de sus suelos. Entre 1950 y 1971, por ejemplo, se produjo un incremento del 330 por ciento en la relación de precios de suelos agrícolas con ingresos agrícolas netos en Maryland (Gloudemans 1974). Un estudio en dos estados y siete condados de la región de Kansas City a comienzos de la década de 1960 encontró que la proporción de ingresos brutos agrícolas absorbida por el impuesto sobre la propiedad en el condado más urbanizado era cuatro veces mayor que en la región metropolitana en su totalidad (Blase y Staub 1971). Por lo tanto, la adopción de un avalúo preferencial para el suelo rural se justificó frecuentemente como una medida política para proteger a las familias de agricultores y ganaderos de penurias económicas o, incluso, la ruina.

Una tercera razón, más sutil, de la adopción de programas UVA, tiene que ver con la manera en que el impuesto sobre la propiedad había sido administrado en muchos estados antes de 1957. Hasta ese momento en la historia de los EE.UU., los valuadores municipales y de condado habían otorgado preferencias tributarias de facto a los agricultores, a pesar de que las cláusulas constitucionales estatales exigían uniformidad y equidad en la tributación. Estas prácticas informales de avalúo tenían como objetivo proporcionar alivio tributario a “ciudadanos que se lo merecían”, pero producían como efecto secundario diferencias considerables en los avalúos de propiedades dentro de la misma comunidad.

La expansión de los programas de ayuda estatal a los gobiernos locales después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial puso al descubierto algunas de estas discrepancias. La cantidad de propiedades por residente o estudiante era frecuentemente un factor importante para determinar las fórmulas utilizadas para la asignación de subsidios estatales. Por lo tanto, creció la presión a nivel estatal para adoptar prácticas locales uniformes de avalúo, con el fin de asegurar una distribución equitativa de subsidios estatales. La eliminación de las preferencias tributarias de facto otorgadas por los valuadores a los agricultores y ganaderos dentro de sus comunidades aceleró los esfuerzos para obtener preferencias tributarias de jure para los suelos rurales, por medio de leyes estatales o enmiendas constitucionales.

California fue uno de los estados que adoptó inicialmente el avalúo por valor de uso para los suelos rurales. En 1965, el poder legislativo aprobó la Ley de Conservación de Suelos de California, comúnmente llamada la Ley Williamson. El objetivo de esta ley era la preservación del suelo rural para poder asegurar un suministro adecuado de alimentos, desalentar la conversión prematura de suelos rurales a uso urbano, y preservar las propiedades agrícolas debido a su valor como espacio abierto.

La Ley Williamson permite a condados y ciudades ofrecer un avalúo preferencial al dueño de un suelo agrícola, condicionado a un contrato que prohíbe el desarrollo del suelo por un mínimo de diez años. Después de la primera década del contrato, este se prolonga automáticamente cada año a menos que el dueño presente una notificación de no renovación de contrato. Una vez presentada esa notificación, el avalúo de la propiedad aumenta anualmente hasta que alcance su valor justo de mercado, y el contrato vence finalmente después de nueve años.

Diversidad y alcance de los programas de avalúo por valor de uso

Con poca repercusión en los medios de comunicación nacionales, el avalúo preferencial de los suelos rurales se ha convertido en una característica fundamental de los impuestos locales sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos. En California, por ejemplo, más de 6,7 millones de hectáreas de suelo agrícola se acogieron a los contratos de la Ley Williamson en 2008-2009. Según el Departamento de Conservación de California, las propiedades sujetas a la Ley Williamson constituían casi un tercio de todos los suelos privados a comienzos de 2009.

Más de 6,5 millones de hectáreas de suelos agrícolas en Ohio estaban inscritas en el programa de Valor de Uso Agrícola Actual (CAUV, por sus siglas en inglés) para 2007. En promedio, estos suelos se habían valuado en sólo un 14,2 por ciento de su valor de mercado. En diciembre de 2011, la Sala de Representantes de Ohio votó por unanimidad a favor de ampliar el programa CAUV del estado para incluir suelos utilizados para la producción de energía por biomasa y biodiésel.

En Nueva Hampshire, se inscribieron 1,2 millones de hectáreas en el programa estatal de avalúo por uso vigente en 2010. Estas parcelas valuadas en forma preferencial constituían más del 51 por ciento del área total de suelos del estado. Como la agricultura desempeña un papel menor en la economía de Nueva Hampshire, más del 90 por ciento de estos suelos sin desarrollar son bosques y humedales, no campos agrícolas ni pasturas.

Dado que las circunstancias económicas, políticas y legales varían sustancialmente entre los 50 estados, no es sorprendente que los gobiernos estatales hayan adoptado programas UVA diversos. En 1977, once estados ya habían creado programas en los cuales las parcelas elegibles quedaban inscritas automáticamente. En otros 38 estados, los programas requerían que los propietarios presentaran solicitudes de avalúo preferencial. Casi todos los estados ofrecían avalúos por debajo del valor de mercado para suelos agrícolas, pero sólo 21 estados extendían avalúos preferenciales para suelos madereros y bosques.

Desde el punto de vista de la conservación de suelos, la diferencia más importante entre los estados es que 15 de ellos no imponen penalizaciones si un dueño convierte su propiedad a un uso no calificado (ver figura 1). Otros siete estados exigen la devolución de un porcentaje del desarrollo inmobiliario efectuado en parcelas inscritas en el programa. Es decir, el propietario tiene que pagar al estado o al municipio un porcentaje del valor de mercado de la parcela en el año en que se desarrolla la propiedad.

Mucho más común es la penalización de reversión, un disuasión del desarrollo que exige al dueño que pague la diferencia entre el impuesto sobre la propiedad efectivamente pagado en los últimos años gracias al avalúo por valor de uso, y el impuesto que hubiera pagado en esos años si el avalúo hubiera sido efectuado al valor de mercado (más los intereses acumulados por dicha diferencia, en algunos casos). Veintiséis estados utilizan esta forma de penalización al desarrollo inmobiliario. Las investigaciones económicas han demostrado que la falta de penalizaciones al desarrollo inmobiliario debilita significativamente la capacidad de un programa UVA para demorar el desarrollo de suelos rurales que se encuentran en el borde de las regiones metropolitanas (England y Mohr 2006).

La práctica de avalúo por valor de uso a veces crea tensiones políticas en la comunidad e incluso puede dañar la legitimidad de la tributación sobre la propiedad como fuente de ingresos locales. En noviembre de 2011, una estación de televisión de Wisconsin reportó que los dueños de lotes vacantes en una subdivisión residencial de lujo habían cosechado malas hierbas en sus parcelas y solicitado con éxito un avalúo agrícola para sus lotes, mientras la construcción estaba pendiente. Este alegato hizo que por lo menos un representante estatal solicitara la realización de audiencias legislativas por abuso del programa de avalúo por valor de uso del estado. Según el representante Louis Molepske, “Esto debería molestar a todos los habitantes de Wisconsin porque han sido engañados por aquellos que… [quieren] transferir injustamente la carga de los impuestos sobre la propiedad a todos los demás” (Polcyn 2011).

Cómo salvar a los agricultores familiares y los paisajes rurales

Los programas UVA, ¿han “salvado al agricultor familiar”, como predijeron originalmente algunos de sus defensores? En realidad, no. Durante la década de 1980, la población agrícola de los Estados Unidos descendió drásticamente un 31,2 por ciento. Desde 1991 a 2007, la cantidad de granjas comerciales pequeñas continuó disminuyendo, de 1,08 millones a 802.000. En ese mismo período de tiempo, las granjas muy grandes (con 1 millón de dólares en ingresos brutos por lo menos) aumentaron su participación en la producción agrícola nacional desde casi el 28 por ciento hasta casi el 47 por ciento (Servicio de Investigación Económica del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos, sin fecha).

Si el avalúo preferencial de los suelos rurales no ha prevenido la disminución de las actividades agrícolas familiares, ¿ha reducido la tasa de desarrollo del suelo rural en los Estados Unidos? Existen pruebas positivas al respecto, pero son modestas. Un estudio sobre el cambio en el uso del suelo desde que Nueva Jersey adoptó el avalúo por uso del suelo en 1964, hasta 1990, encontró que el programa tuvo un impacto muy modesto en la tasa de conversión de suelos agrícolas a usos urbanos (Parks y Quimio, 1996). Después de su estudio en 1998 de casi 3.000 condados de los Estados Unidos, Morris (1998) concluyó que, en promedio, los programas UVA tuvieron como resultado el mantenimiento de aproximadamente un 10 por ciento más de suelos agrícolas en un condado después de 20 años de funcionamiento del programa. Después de su estudio detallado sobre el cambio de uso del suelo en Luisiana, Polyakov y Zhang (2008) concluyeron que se hubieran desarrollado 65.000 hectáreas más de suelos agrícolas durante los cinco años posteriores a 1992 si no hubiera existido un programa UVA en el estado. Parece, entonces, que los programas UVA han ralentizado algo la expansión metropolitana durante las últimas décadas.

Transfiriendo la carga tributaria a nuestros vecinos

Si bien la reducción en la tasa de desarrollo del suelo constituye un beneficio medioambiental y público de los programas UVA, viene acompañado de un costo social. Cuando las propiedades de agricultores, ganaderos y dueños forestales reciben un avalúo muy por debajo del valor de mercado, los gobiernos locales recaudan menos impuestos, a no ser que suban la tasa de impuestos de todas las demás propiedades gravables. Al elevar las tasas tributarias para mantener los niveles de gasto público, los pueblos y condados aumentan las facturas de los impuestos sobre la propiedad de los propietarios no sujetos al UVA, que principalmente son los dueños de viviendas.

Este impacto potencialmente regresivo de los programas UVA se conocía desde hacía décadas. En su informe de 1976 sobre el avalúo preferencial de suelos agrícolas y espacios abiertos, el Consejo sobre Calidad Medioambiental del Presidente (1976, 6-8) expresó claramente que estos programas estatales tienen un costo tributario de magnitud significativa, afectando la redistribución de ingresos entre los contribuyentes:

Todas las leyes de avalúo diferencial… [generan] ‘gastos tributarios’, porque las facturas de cobro de algunos contribuyentes se reducen…. En lamayoría de los casos, el costo de esta reducción se distribuye entre todos los demás contribuyentes… El efecto de un gasto tributario es precisamente el mismo que si los contribuyentes que reciben el beneficio debieran pagar sus impuestos a la misma tasa que los contribuyentes no preferenciales, y al mismo tiempo recibieran un subsidio… por el valor del beneficio tributario.

La magnitud de esta transferencia de impuestos entre los dueños de propiedades puede ser considerable. El informe de Anderson y Griffing (2000) estima los gastos tributarios de dos condados de Nebraska asociados con el programa UVA del estado. El gasto tributario promedio es aproximadamente el 36 por ciento de los ingresos del condado de Lancaster y el 75 por ciento de los ingresos del condado de Sarpy.

Dunford y Marousek (1981) han estudiado el impacto de la Ley de Impuestos sobre Espacios Abiertos (OSTA, por sus siglas en inglés) del estado de Washington sobre la distribución de la carga tributaria en el condado de Spokane. Ocho años después de la creación del programa OSTA, se han inscrito aproximadamente 180.000 hectáreas del condado de Spokane, es decir, alrededor del 40 por ciento del área total de suelos del condado.

Los autores calculan que el aumento de impuestos de las propiedades no participantes para compensar la reducción de impuestos a los dueños de las parcelas inscritas ascendería al 1,3 por ciento, si se deseara mantener los ingresos constantes. No obstante, oculto en este cálculo promedio para el condado, se encuentran enormes diferencias entre las distintas comunidades. Aun cuando la transferencia tributaria a las propiedades no participantes sería sólo del 1-2 por ciento en muchas localidades, esta alcanzaría hasta el 21,9 por ciento en una comunidad. La conclusión de este y otros estudios es que el otorgamiento de avalúos preferenciales a los terratenientes rurales podría ayudar a retrasar el desarrollo inmobiliario de sus propiedades, pero también podría imponer una carga fiscal sobre los propietarios de viviendas así como también sobre los dueños de propiedades comerciales e industriales.

Reforma de los programas de avalúo por valor de uso

Como muchos estados han tenido casi medio siglo de experiencia con sus programas UVA, este es un buen momento para que los legisladores estatales y los departamentos tributarios hagan una pausa y se pregunten si esta característica de su sistema tributario estatal y local debería ser reformada o no. La transferencia de la carga del impuesto sobre la propiedad causada por los programas UVA en muchas comunidades sólo se puede justificar si dicha tasa tributaria preferencial sirve al más amplio interés público. El argumento a favor de la reforma cobra más impulso si se considera que el 94 por ciento de las unidades familiares agrarias tienen un patrimonio neto mayor a la mediana de todos los hogares de los Estados Unidos.

Después de la brusca caída de los mercados inmobiliarios residenciales y comerciales en 2008–2010, la tasa de conversión de suelos rurales a uso urbano disminuyó en muchos estados, al menos por el momento. Para las comunidades, puede ser más fácil considerar la adopción de reformas a los programas UVA durante este período, cuando muchos dueños de suelos rurales no tienen expectativas de vender sus propiedades a emprendedores inmobiliarios en un futuro cercano. Después de una amplia revisión de la literatura de investigación sobre los programas UVA estatales, recomiendo las siguientes reformas (England, 2011).

Aquellos estados que no imponen todavía una penalización cuando un suelo se retira del programa UVA deben comenzar a hacerlo. A menos que el propietario de suelos rurales tenga que pagar una multa en el momento en que su parcela se desarrolle, solamente se aprovechará del ahorro en el impuesto sobre la propiedad ofrecido por el programa UVA hasta que el precio de mercado del suelo desarrollado sea suficientemente atractivo. Por otro lado, la imposición de una penalización alta por hectárea, que disminuya con la cantidad de años de inscripción en el programa, podría inducir al propietario de suelos rurales a retrasar su desarrollo inmobiliario por años. Durante estos años, los fideicomisos de suelos y agencias estatales tendrían la oportunidad de imponer servidumbres de conservación sobre las parcelas rurales que merecen protección permanente contra el desarrollo inmobiliario. En una era en que pocos propietarios de suelos rurales son agricultores pobres, los programas UVA deberían ayudar a proteger los paisajes rurales y preservar los servicios de ecosistemas, en vez de subsidiar a los terratenientes ricos.

Los estados también deberían reconsiderar tres categorías de suelos rurales que son elegibles para el avalúo por valor de uso. (1) Los suelos agrícolas y ganaderos no deberían inscribirse automáticamente, como es la práctica en algunos estados. En lugar de ello, se debería obligar a los propietarios rurales a documentar los ingresos netos considerables recibidos por la venta de productos agrícolaganaderos durante el año fiscal precedente. Esto evitaría que el propietario de suelos ociosos a punto de ser desarrollados recibiera un descuento en su impuesto sobre la propiedad. (2) Las parcelas agrícolas no deberían ser elegibles para el avalúo por valor de uso si ya se presentaron planes de subdivisión o si las parcelas han sido reasignadas para uso residencial, comercial o industrial. Si existen pruebas consistentes de que un terrateniente va a comenzar pronto a desarrollar una parcela, no hay ninguna razón para continuar dándole el tratamiento tributario preferencial del programa UVA. (3) Los bosques, humedales y otras parcelas de uso no agrícola deberían ser elegibles para el avalúo por valor de uso si generan beneficios públicos tales como protección contra inundaciones, hábitat silvestre y vistas panorámicas. Por otro lado, los suelos áridos con gran potencial de desarrollo que se encuentran en el borde de las áreas metropolitanas se deberían avaluar al valor del mercado si no producen servicios de ecosistemas que beneficien a la sociedad en su conjunto.

Los estados deberían revisar cuidadosamente los métodos de capitalización de ingresos empleados para estimar el valor de uso agrícola de las propiedades rurales. Las pautas para estimar los ingresos netos de suelos agrícolas y para seleccionar la tasa de descuento que capitaliza el flujo de ingresos se debe basar en principios económicos sólidos, y se debería presentar a los contribuyentes de manera transparente. Debido a que los cálculos de capitalización de ingresos son muy sensibles a la elección de la tasa de descuento, dicha elección se debe justificar apropiadamente, y no puede tomarse arbitrariamente. En principio, la tasa de descuento libre de riesgo se tiene que ajustar según la inflación, el riesgo de incumplimiento, el riesgo de vencimiento y las restricciones de liquidez.

Los gobiernos estatales deberían reconocer que, si bien sus programas UVA generan beneficios medioambientales para el público en general, también imponen cargas fiscales sobre las localidades en que los dueños privados de suelos rurales se benefician de un avalúo preferencial. Por ejemplo, California promulgó su Ley de Subvención de Espacios Vacíos en 1972 para mitigar el impacto de la Ley Williamson sobre los presupuestos de los gobiernos locales, proporcionando subsidios estatales para reemplazar en parte los ingresos tributarios perdidos del impuesto a la propiedad. Entre 1972 y 2008, estos subsidios de Sacramento a las ciudades y condados ascendieron a 839 millones de dólares. (Estos subsidios fueron suspendidos en 2009, sin embargo, debido al enorme déficit presupuestario del estado.)

Como el avalúo preferencial del suelo rural se ha convertido en una característica fundamental del impuesto sobre la propiedad en los Estados Unidos, los gobernadores y los legisladores estatales deberían hacer una pausa y reconsiderar si estos tipos de reformas podrían mejorar tanto el desempeño de sus programas UVA como el apoyo popular a los mismos.

Sobre el autor

Richard W. England es profesor de Economía y Recursos Naturales de la Universidad de Nueva Hampshire. También es visiting fellow del Departamento de Valuación y Tributación del Instituto Lincoln.

Referencias

Alig, Ralph J., Andrew J. Plantinga, SoEun Ahn, and Jeffrey D. Kline. 2003. Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. Technical Report. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Anderson, John E., and Marlon F. Griffing. 2000. Measuring use-value assessment tax expenditures. Assessment Journal (January/February): 35–47.

Blase, Melvin G., and William J. Staub. 1971. Real property taxes in the rural-urban fringe. Land Economics (May): 168–174.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1976. Untaxing open space: An evaluation of the effectiveness of differential assessment of farms and open space. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dunford, Richard W., and Douglas C. Marousek. 1981. Sub-county property tax shifts attributable to use-value assessments on farmland. Land Economics (May): 221–229.

England, Richard W. 2002. Current-use property assessment and land development: A theoretical and empirical review of development penalties. State Tax Notes, 16 December: 795.

———. 2011. Preferential assessment of rural land in the United States: A literature review and reform proposals. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

England, Richard W., and Robert D. Mohr. 2006. Land development and current use assessment. In Economics and contemporary land use policy: Development and conservation at the rural-urban fringe, ed. S.K. Swallow and R.J. Johnston. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Gloudemans, Robert J. 1974. Use-value farmland assessments: Theory, practice, and impact. Chicago: International Association of Assessing Officials.

Morris, Adele C. 1998. Property tax treatment of farmland: Does tax relief delay land development? In Local government tax and land use policies in the United States, ed. Helen F. Ladd, 144–167. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

Parks, Peter J., and Wilma Rose H. Quimio. 1996. Preserving agricultural land with farmland assessment: New Jersey as a case study. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review (April): 22–27.

Polcyn, Bryan. Lawmaker calls for hearing after farmland tax loophole exposed. WITI–TV, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin, 22 November 2011.

Polyakov, Maksym, and Daowei Zhang. 2008. Property tax policy and land-use change. Land Economics (August): 396–408.

USDA Economic Research Service. n.d. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov

The case of Mexicali, the capital city of the border state of Baja California, Mexico, stands out as a good example of successful property tax reform in the 1990s. In only a few years the local government was able to raise revenues associated with the property tax, as well as strengthen its municipal finances and modernize its cadastral and collection systems. Furthermore, Mexicali carried out this reform by adopting a land value taxation system, the first of its kind in Mexico, and gained the public’s acceptance for these changes. Without ignoring its problems and flaws, this case provides interesting lessons on future property tax reform endeavors in Mexico and other countries.

Economic, Political and Technical Considerations

Accomplishing property tax reform did not always seem to be an easy task in Mexicali or anywhere in Mexico. Since 1983, the local level of government has been responsible for setting up and collecting property taxes, although state authorities kept certain responsibilities. Throughout the 1980s, property tax revenues, and local revenues in general, experienced a severe drop caused by a combination of high inflation rates, economic recession, lack of political interest, and reduced administrative competence of local governments, which preferred to rely on revenue-sharing sources.

In the early 1990s, a clear improvement in the nation’s macro-economic performance made conditions more favorable for change, although political and technical factors reduced the incentives for many state and local governments to embark on fiscal reform. Nevertheless, the federal administration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1989-1994) launched an initiative to improve local finances through a cadastre modernization program lead by BANOBRAS (Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios), a public development bank.

Even before this program and other national policies began to exert an influence on local and state administrations, Mexicali took the lead in property tax reform. Starting in 1989, the newly elected mayor, Milton Castellanos Gout, saw the importance of having strong local finances and wanted to raise revenues at the beginning of his term. He hired a private consulting firm to update cadastral values. The main consultant, Sergio Flores Peña, a graduate in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley, convinced the mayor to change from a mixed-value tax base on land and buildings to a land value system, and to design a mathematical model to calculate land values.

Rather than being attracted by theoretical or ideological beliefs about the advantages of a land value tax, Castellanos was convinced that it would be the easiest and fastest way to raise revenues. He took the political risk of proposing a Municipal Cadastral Committee, including real estate owners’ organizations, professional organizations and citizen representatives.

The results were spectacular in two ways: first, the new tax raised revenues quickly (see Table 1); and second, there was not a single legal or political objection from taxpayers. The increase in revenues from real estate property taxes and property sales, by far the most important source of local revenues, allowed the mayor to launch an important public works program. In the next fiscal year, however, he wanted to loosen his fiscal grip, so he did not pursue land valuation updates and abandoned the mathematical model that was originally created for that purpose.

Opposition to updating land values came from both the Municipal Cadastral Committee and the government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation office who lacked the technical capability to manipulate the model and feared that their power and control might be weakened by the participation of the private consulting firm. As a result, the mathematical model was abandoned and land values where subsequently defined by a process of negotiation and bargaining between local authorities, elected representatives and the committee. However, the land value taxation system remained as the base to establish land values.

At the same time, the Castellanos administration embarked on a cadastre modernization program with financial resources from the federal government. However, since the mayor saw that his main objective of raising revenues had been achieved, the efforts to modernize the cadastral system became a secondary priority that was not as successful.

In subsequent administrations, the policy towards tax revenues and cadastre modernization varied. The next mayor, Francisco Pérez Tejeda (1992-1995), was a member of the same political party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI). He experienced a drop in property tax revenue during his first year in office, and taxes only increased at the end of his administration. He abandoned the cadastre modernization program, but maintained the land value taxation system.

The next administration was led by Eugenio Elourdy (1995-1998), a member of the Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN). He was the first opposition party leader in Mexicali, although a member of PAN had governed at the state level from 1989 to 1994. During Elourdy’s term, land values were updated, property tax revenues grew steadily and cadastre modernization was vigorously resumed. The current administration led by Victor Hermosillo (1999-2001) is continuing with cadastre reform.

Assessing the Mexicali Experience

There is no question that the process of fiscal reform has stimulated property tax revenues as the fastest and most important financial source for the city government. Currently, property tax revenues account for more than 50 percent of local municipal revenues. Mexicali is well above the state and national averages for the relative share of property tax revenues to total revenues (15.3 percent in 1995, compared to 8.4 percent at the state level and 10.3 percent at the national level). Local government officials in charge of the cadastre and valuation systems are well prepared with technical expertise and an awareness of the need to conduct permanent reform within the system. Mexicali’s example has already been replicated in the rest of the state of Baja California and in the neighboring state of Baja California Sur.

The Mexicali case offers some important lessons. First, the property tax plays a central role in strengthening local governments, not only for raising sufficient revenues for urban development but also for providing government officials with the skills to organize the tax system in a way that can be sound, legitimate and transparent.

Second, property tax reform requires vision, leadership and, most of all, political will and commitment from the executive. However, successful reform to raise taxes also depends on a sound technical base and acceptance by the general public.

Third, the land value tax proved to be extremely helpful in achieving successful reform at an early stage. It is clear that the rationale for adopting land value taxation had more to do with a pragmatic approach than with theoretical positions or debates over different schools of thought. However, this should not prevent government officials, consultants, scholars and the general public from thoroughly analyzing the diverse consequences of this approach in terms of economic efficiency, equity and administrative management.

Although a land value tax has proven to be successful in the case of Mexicali, it should not be viewed as a panacea for all situations. It is important to recognize that the tax can be of little help without other measures that have to be considered as part of property tax reform, such as cadastre modernization, clear policies on tax rates and public participation.

Finally, cases of property tax reform around the world cannot be viewed as black-and-white, success-or-failure experiences, but rather, like Mexicali, as stories that combine success, flaws and steps backward. Far from being a perfect example of property tax reform, Mexicali is a good learning experience. It shows that changes can take place in a field where very often one thinks that little can be accomplished.

Manuel Perlo Cohen is a researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. He received support for this case study from the Lincoln Institute and he has participated in numerous Institute-sponsored courses and seminars throughout Latin America.

More than 50 years ago, a slowly unfolding but fundamental process began to transform property taxation in the United States. Because this process took place at the state and local, not federal, levels of government, and because the almost universal adoption of preferential assessment spanned several decades, most citizens are unaware that owners of rural parcels often enjoy such treatment of their properties. As a result, millions of acres of rural land are now assessed far below fair market value for purposes of local property taxation.

These modifications of the property tax began in Maryland in 1957, when the General Assembly enacted an agricultural use assessment law. This statute provides that farm fields and pastures can be assessed below market value as long as they are being “actively used” for agricultural purposes. As evidence of active agricultural use, an owner can document that the property had generated $2,500 or more of annual gross revenue from the sale of agricultural products during recent years.

Several factors prompted dozens of state governments to emulate Maryland and enact use value assessment (UVA) programs during the 1960s and 1970s. First was the massive expansion of U.S. metropolitan regions after World War II, which led to the conversion of tens of millions of acres of farm, ranch, forest, and other rural lands to residential and other nonagricultural uses. Alig et al. (2003) estimate that the nation’s developed area more than doubled between 1960 and 1997, from 25.5 to 65.5 million acres. Rapid urbanization of rural land had come earlier to Maryland than other states because its populations in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, near the fast-growing nation’s capital in Washington, DC, quadrupled from 1940 to 1960.

Second, agricultural land on the fringe of metropolitan regions escalated in price during the postwar decades because of its development potential, causing some farmers to face escalating property tax bills because of higher land value assessments. From 1950 to 1971, for example, there was a 330 percent increase in the ratio of farmland prices to net farm income in Maryland (Gloudemans 1974). A study of the two-state, seven-county Kansas City region in the early 1960s found that the proportion of gross farm income absorbed by the property tax in the most urbanized county was four times greater than in the metropolitan region as a whole (Blase and Staub 1971). Hence, adoption of preferential assessment of rural land was often justified as a policy measure to protect family farmers and ranchers from financial stress or even ruin.

A third and more subtle reason for the adoption of UVA programs reflects how the property tax had been administered in many states before 1957. Until that moment in U.S. history, county and municipal assessors had frequently given de facto tax preferences to farmers despite state constitutional provisions requiring uniformity and equality of taxation. These informal assessment practices were intended to provide property tax relief to “deserving citizens,” but often resulted in dramatic differences in assessment ratios among taxable properties within the same community.

The expansion of state aid programs for local governments after World War II exposed some of these discrepancies. Property wealth per resident or pupil often played a major role in determining the formulas used to allocate state grants. Thus, pressure mounted at the state level for uniform local assessment practices to ensure an equitable distribution of state grants. The elimination of de facto tax preferences that had been granted by tax assessors to farmers and ranchers within their communities fueled efforts to gain de jure tax preferences for rural land via state statutes or constitutional amendments.

California was one of the early adopters of use value assessment of rural land. In 1965, its legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act, commonly known as the Williamson Act. The goals of this statute are to preserve agricultural land in order to ensure adequate food supply, to discourage premature conversion of farmland to urban uses, and to preserve agricultural properties for their open-space amenity values.

The Williamson Act enables counties and cities to offer preferential assessment of agricultural land to an owner in return for a contract barring land development for a minimum of ten years. After the first decade of the contract, an automatic extension continues every year unless the owner files a notice of contract nonrenewal. If such a notice is filed, the property’s assessment rises annually until it reaches fair market value and the contract finally terminates after nine years.

Diversity and Extent of Use Value Assessment Programs

With little fanfare in the national media, preferential assessment of rural land has become a central feature of local property taxation across the United States. In California, for example, over 16.5 million acres of agricultural land were subject to Williamson Act contracts in 2008–2009. According to the California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act properties comprised nearly one-third of the state’s privately owned land at the beginning of 2009.

More than 16 million acres of Ohio farmland had been enrolled in that state’s current agricultural use value (CAUV) program by 2007. On average, those acres had been lightly assessed at only 14.2 percent of market value. In December 2011 the Ohio House of Representatives voted unanimously to expand the state’s CAUV program to include land used for biomass and biodiesel energy production.

In New Hampshire, 2.95 million acres were enrolled in the state’s current use assessment program in 2010. These preferentially assessed parcels comprised over 51 percent of the Granite State’s total land area. Since agriculture plays a minor role in the New Hampshire economy, over 90 percent of this undeveloped acreage consisted of forests and wetlands, not farm fields and pastures.

Because economic, political, and legal circumstances vary substantially among the 50 states, it is not surprising that state governments have adopted diverse UVA programs. By 1977, eleven states had implemented programs in which eligible parcels enjoyed automatic enrollment. In another 38 states these programs required owners to file applications for preferential assessment. Nearly all states offered assessments below market value to agricultural land, but only 21 states extended preferential assessment to timberlands and forests.

From a land conservation perspective, the most important difference among the states is that 15 do not collect a penalty if a landowner converts his property to an unqualified use (figure 1). Another seven states levy a percent payback penalty on development of enrolled land parcels. That is, the owner has to pay the state or town a percentage of the parcel’s market value during the year of property development.

Far more common is the rollback penalty, a development deterrent that requires the landowner to pay the difference between property taxes actually paid during recent years of use value assessment and the taxes that would have been paid during those years with market-value assessment (plus accrued interest on that difference in some cases). Twenty-six states utilize this form of development penalty. Economic research has demonstrated that failure to levy a development penalty severely weakens the capacity of a UVA program to delay development of rural land at the edge of metropolitan regions (England and Mohr 2006).

The practice of use value assessment sometimes creates political tension within a community and can even damage the legitimacy of property taxation as a local revenue source. In November 2011, a Wisconsin TV station reported that owners of vacant lots in an upscale residential subdivision had harvested weeds from their parcels and successfully applied for agricultural assessment of their house lots pending construction. This allegation led at least one state representative to call for legislative hearings about abuses of the state’s use value assessment program. According to Rep. Louis Molepske, “It should upset every Wisconsinite because they are being duped by those who… [want] to shift their property taxes to everybody else, unfairly” (Polcyn 2011).

Saving Family Farmers and Rural Landscapes

Have UVA programs “saved the family farmer” as some proponents had originally predicted? Not exactly. During the 1980s, the U.S. farm population fell dramatically by 31.2 percent. From 1991 to 2007, the number of small commercial farms continued its decline, from 1.08 million to 802,000. During that same time period, very large farms (with at least $1 million of gross cash income) increased their share of national farm production from nearly 28 percent to almost 47 percent (USDA Economic Research Service n.d.).

If preferential assessment of rural land has not prevented the decline of family farming, has it slowed the rate of land development in rural America? The evidence on this question is positive, but modestly so. A study of land use change in New Jersey from its adoption of use value assessment in 1964 to 1990 found that the program had a very modest impact on the rate of conversion of agricultural land to urban uses (Parks and Quimio 1996). After her 1998 study of nearly 3,000 counties across the U.S., Morris (1998) concluded that, on average, UVA programs resulted in roughly 10 percent more of the land in a county being retained in farming after 20 years of program operation. After their detailed study of land use changes in Louisiana, Polyakov and Zhang (2008) concluded that an additional 162,000 acres of farmland would have been developed during the five years after 1992 if there had been no UVA program in the state. It seems, then, that UVA programs have slowed down metropolitan sprawl somewhat during recent decades.

Shifting the Tax Burden to One’s Neighbors

Although slowing the rate of land development is an environmental and public benefit of UVA programs, it entails a social cost. When the properties of farmers, ranchers, and forest owners are assessed far below market value, local governments collect fewer property tax receipts unless they raise the tax rate that is levied on all taxable properties. If they raise their property tax rates to maintain public expenditure levels, rural towns and counties increase the tax bills of non-UVA owners, primarily homeowners.

This potentially regressive impact of UVA programs has been known for decades. In its 1976 report on preferential assessment of farms and open space, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (1976, 6–8) stated clearly that these state programs result in tax expenditures of significant magnitude that redistribute income among taxpayers:

“All differential assessment laws . . . [entail] ‘tax expenditures,’ by means of which the tax bills of some taxpayers are reduced. . . . In most cases, the cost of this reduction is spread over all the other taxpayers. . . . The effect of a tax expenditure is precisely the same as if the taxpayers who receive the benefit were to pay taxes at the same rate as other, non-preferred taxpayers, and then were to receive a simultaneous grant . . . in the amount of the tax benefit.”

The magnitude of this tax shift among property owners can be quite substantial. Anderson and Griffing (2000) report estimates of the tax expenditures in two Nebraska counties associated with the state’s UVA program. The average tax expenditure is approximately 36 percent of revenue in Lancaster County and 75 percent of revenue in Sarpy County.

Dunford and Marousek (1981) have studied the impact of the 1970 Open Space Tax Act (OSTA) in Washington State on the distribution of the property tax burden in Spokane County. Eight years after enactment of the OSTA program, roughly 444,000 acres in Spokane County had been enrolled—about 40 percent of the county’s total land area.

The authors calculate that the revenue-neutral increase in property taxes paid by nonparticipating properties to offset the tax cuts enjoyed by owners of enrolled parcels would equal 1.3 percent. Hidden within this countywide average, however, are huge differences among communities. Although the tax shift to nonparticipating properties would be 1–2 percent in many localities, it would range as high as 21.9 percent in one community. The implication of this and other studies is that granting preferential assessment to rural landowners might help to delay development of their properties, but it might also impose a fiscal burden on homeowners as well as owners of commercial and industrial properties.

Reform of Use Value Assessment Programs

Because many states have had nearly half a century of experience with their UVA programs, this is a good time for state legislatures and tax departments to pause and ask whether this feature of their state and local tax system should be reformed or not. The shift in property tax burden caused by UVA programs in many communities can be justified only if this tax preference serves the broader public interest. The case for reform seems stronger when one realizes that 94 percent of farm households have a net worth greater than the median for all U.S. households.

After the severe downturn in residential and commercial real estate markets in 2008–2010, the rate of conversion of rural land to urban uses slowed in many states, at least for the moment. It might be easier for communities to consider and adopt reforms of UVA programs during this period when many owners of rural land do not expect to sell to real estate developers in the near future. After an extensive review of the research literature on state UVA programs, I recommend the following set of reforms (England 2011).

Those states that do not yet levy a penalty when land is removed from their UVA programs should do so. Unless the owner of rural land faces a penalty at the moment of development, he or she will simply collect the property tax saving offered by the UVA program until the market price of developed land is attractive enough. On the other hand, enactment of a high penalty per acre that declines with years of enrollment in the program could induce the owner of rural land to defer development for years. During those years, land trusts and state agencies have an opportunity to place conservation easements on those rural parcels that deserve permanent protection from development. In an era when few owners of rural land are poor working farmers, UVA programs should help to protect rural landscapes and conserve ecosystem services, not subsidize wealthy landowners.

States should also reconsider three categories of rural land that are eligible for use value assessment. (1) Farm and ranch land should not be enrolled automatically, as is the practice in some states. Rather, landowners should be required to document substantial net income from the sale of agricultural commodities during the previous tax year. This would prevent the owner of idle land that is about to be developed from receiving a property tax break. (2) Agricultural parcels should not be eligible for use value assessment if subdivision plans have already been filed or if the parcels have been rezoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use. If there is substantial evidence that a landowner will soon develop a parcel, there is no reason to continue the UVA tax preference. (3) Forest, wetland, and other nonagricultural parcels should be eligible for use value assessment if they generate public goods such as flood protection, wildlife habitats, and scenic views. On the other hand, barren land with great development potential on the fringe of a metropolitan region should be assessed at market value if it does not produce ecosystem services that benefit society at large.

States should carefully review the income capitalization methods they employ to estimate the agricultural use value of rural properties. The guidelines for estimating the net income of agricultural land and for selecting the discount rate that capitalizes that income stream should be based on sound economic principles and should be presented to taxpayers in a transparent fashion. Because income capitalization calculations are so sensitive to choice of discount rate, that choice needs to be justified and should not be ad hoc. In principle, the risk-free rate of discount needs to be adjusted for inflation, default risk, maturity risk, and liquidity constraints.

State governments should acknowledge that, although their UVA programs generate environmental benefits for the general public, they also impose fiscal burdens on those localities in which private owners of rural land enjoy preferential assessment. For example, California enacted its Open Space Subvention Act in 1972 to mitigate the impact of the Williamson Act on local government budgets by providing state grants to partially replace foregone local property tax revenues. From 1972 through 2008, those subvention payments from Sacramento to the cities and counties totaled $839 million. (Subvention payments were suspended during 2009, however, because of the state’s mammoth budget deficit.)

Since preferential assessment of rural land has become such a central feature of property taxation in the United States, governors and state legislatures need to pause and consider whether these types of reforms would improve the performance of and increase popular support for their UVA programs.

About the Author

Richard W. England is a professor of economics and natural resources at the University of New Hampshire. He is also a visiting fellow with the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

References

Alig, Ralph J., Andrew J. Plantinga, SoEun Ahn, and Jeffrey D. Kline. 2003. Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. Technical Report. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Anderson, John E., and Marlon F. Griffing. 2000. Measuring use-value assessment tax expenditures. Assessment Journal (January/February): 35–47.

Blase, Melvin G., and William J. Staub. 1971. Real property taxes in the rural-urban fringe. Land Economics (May): 168–174.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1976. Untaxing open space: An evaluation of the effectiveness of differential assessment of farms and open space. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dunford, Richard W., and Douglas C. Marousek. 1981. Sub-county property tax shifts attributable to use-value assessments on farmland. Land Economics (May): 221–229.

England, Richard W. 2002. Current-use property assessment and land development: A theoretical and empirical review of development penalties. State Tax Notes, 16 December: 795.

———. 2011. Preferential assessment of rural land in the United States: A literature review and reform proposals. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

England, Richard W., and Robert D. Mohr. 2006. Land development and current use assessment. In Economics and contemporary land use policy: Development and conservation at the rural-urban fringe, ed. S.K. Swallow and R.J. Johnston. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Gloudemans, Robert J. 1974. Use-value farmland assessments: Theory, practice, and impact. Chicago: International Association of Assessing Officials.

Morris, Adele C. 1998. Property tax treatment of farmland: Does tax relief delay land development? In Local government tax and land use policies in the United States, ed. Helen F. Ladd, 144–167. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

Parks, Peter J., and Wilma Rose H. Quimio. 1996. Preserving agricultural land with farmland assessment: New Jersey as a case study. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review (April): 22–27.

Polcyn, Bryan. Lawmaker calls for hearing after farmland tax loophole exposed. WITI–TV, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin, 22 November 2011.

Polyakov, Maksym, and Daowei Zhang. 2008. Property tax policy and land-use change. Land Economics (August): 396–408.

USDA Economic Research Service. n.d. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov