Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Property Taxes in Poland and other transition countries W. Jan Brzeski Innovations in Local Revenue Mobilization World Bank, June 23-24, 2003 1 Some Data on Poland • • • • • • • • • Population almost 40 million people 4.5 million buildings and 11 million dwellings 92 cities with population over 50,000 property tax constitutes 14% of municipal revenues property taxation raises 1.8 billion USD revenue 5.5 million real property taxpayers 2 million agricultural taxpayers 1.2 million forest taxpayers largest property tax revenue in post Soviet economies 2 Strong Political Decentralization COUNTRY France Germany Italy Spain United Kingdom POLAND # Regions # Counties # Municipalities 22 96 36.559 16 426 16.121 20 108 8.104 17 50 8.082 135 319 16 373 2.489 3 Pros and Cons of Decentralization • ADVANTAGES OF DECENTRALIZATION: – Better match supply/demand of public services – More efficient provision mechanism – Increased political stability • DISADVANTAGES OF DECENTRALIZATION: – Aggravations of spatial disparities – Less efficient budgetary macro-economic management – Higher fixed costs of territorial administration 4 Weak Fiscal Decentralization • • • • • • • Sub-national gov’t share in GDP only 8% vs. 15% in EU Sub-national gov’t debt 1% vs. 10-20% in EU Current problems with growing public finance deficit Governments committed to lower income taxation VAT is already very high at 22% Cutting public expenditures through sector reforms Need for greater role of real property taxation 5 Significant Role of Property Taxation COUNTRY Poland Average for the CE Average for the EU Property taxes Property taxes: Property taxes: Property taxes: relative to the share of share of total share of local economy: GDP government local revenues autonomous revenues revenues 1,2 % 0,6 % 0,9 % 3,0 % 1,7 % 2,2 % 13,9 % 8,1 % 7,3 % 31,8 % 15,3 % 32,5 % 6 Contemporary History of Property Tax • • • • • • • • • • 1985 agricultural property tax introduced 1986 real estate tax introduced to expand non-income tax base in crumbling economy capture wealth diverted to this untaxed area lack of markets forced the use of area tax basis 1991 Solidarity gov’t assigned the tax to municipalities 1992 forest property tax introduced 1997 amendments to close loopholes, more exemptions 2001 rationalization of tax, broader tax base coverage 2003 further amendments to existing regulations 7 Present Framework of Property Taxation • • • • • • • • National budget stipulates max / min property tax rates Law on Local Taxes and Fees - real estate tax Law on Agricultural Tax Law on Forest Tax Real estate (urban based) property tax yields over 80% Agricultural property tax yields 15% Forest property tax yields 2% Municipalities set their rates and additional exemptions 8 Focus on Real Estate Taxation • • • • • • • • Tax base: land and floor area, book value Tax liability: natural and legal persons Tax payable by owners or users/leaseholders Land tax differentiates rates by categories Building tax differentiates rates by categories Structures tax on depreciable business assets Exemptions granted by nat’l laws and local ordinances Government properties usually not exempted 9 Real Estate Tax Rates TAX BASE TAX RATE CEILING (USD) Residential building usable area 0.11 Business building usable area 3.69 Seed related building usable area 1.72 Other building usable areas 1.23 Book value of depreciable structures 2.00 % Business use land area 0.13 Non-farm cropland area 0.01 Land under lakes, reservoirs, and power 0.72 Residential and other land 0.02 10 Real Estate Tax Administration • • • • • • • • Most administrative work by local government Fiscal cadastres are taxpayer (subject) based Different procedures for natural and legal persons Legal persons do self-assessment and pay monthly Natural persons are billed and pay quarterly Taxpayers pay on property portfolio Enforcement: tax lien, foreclosure, seizure, garnishment Several appeals instances possible through admin. code 11 Evaluation of the Present System (1) • • • • • • • Simple, transparent and easily understood Many taxpayers, administrators and politicians like it Economists and public finance reformers want change Discriminates business occupiers vs residential Discriminates industrial occupiers vs commercial Discriminates buildings vs land Discriminates taxpayers with low value property 12 Evaluation of the Present System (2) • Residential tax kept at minimal levels: – home 120 m2 on 400 m2 parcel pays 21 USD in 4 installments • • • • • Business tax 35 times higher than residential Political economy: “business are rich, people are poor” Business buildings yield 50% revenue, but store 5% value Residential buildings store 70% value, but yield 10% rev. Tax revenue contributions in small cities: – residential land 7.8%, business land 23% – residential buildings 3.4%, business buildings 36% 13 Evaluation of the Present System (3) • Effective taxation in ad valorem equivalent: – – – – business use buildings: 7.8% of capital value business use land: 1.4% of capital value residential use buildings: 0.062% of capital value residential use land: 0.046% of capital value • Land use efficiency is low and riddled with speculation – – – – spatial misallocations functional misallocations locational misallocations user mismatch 14 Ad Valorem Reform Efforts • Parliamentary resolution in 1994 requesting ad valorem • Ad valorem included in governmental Strategy for Poland • In 1995 inter-ministerial group adopted basic premises: – – – – – unified taxation replaces real estate, agricultural and forest taxes the need for fiscal cadastre to be used for ad valorem taxation the ad valorem assessment will produce “cadastral values” ad valorem will induce better market and housing finance central agency to manage cadastres and general valuation • Task force at Finance Ministry prepared package of 5 Acts • The process stopped by intra-government disagreements 15 Ad Valorem Reform Efforts (2) • • • • • • • • • • negative publicity incited by oponents of ad valorem 1997 new government interested in more decentralization return to idea of gradual ad valorem property tax reforms international institutions advocated/supported ad valorem Ministry set up Department of Local Taxes and Cadastre reformers took study tours in F, D, USA, Cdn, NL 1999 CEE conference - International Property Tax Institute strategy to modify rather than discard area based system linking property tax with fiscal decentralization reforms new emphasis on tax zoning of land in 2002/03 16 Ad Valorem Reform Efforts (3) • Modification of area based towards ad valorem: – – – – – – replacing three taxes with one possibility for local governments to select “taxation zones” taxation zones would simulate land value zones each taxation zone could carry different land tax rates special rates could apply to vacant serviced building lots business use buildings would be taxed on book/market values • Longer-term ad valorem strategy: – residential buildings taxed on book values, later capital value – land tax using more value based coefficients – finally, capital value on whole properties 17 Ad Valorem Reform Efforts (4) • Political economy constraints / innovations: – – – – – – – – – revenue neutrality of the initial stage – structural change self-financing of the subsequent stages of the reform discovery of more properties can bring extra revenues - cadastre elimination of some exemptions can bring extra revenues do not bring new system – modify the existing one emphasize the need to shift from subject based to object based tie in changes with other larger reforms – local finance Enable municipalities and create incentives Run strong public relations and taxapayer education campaign 18 Future Prospects and Challenges (1) • Economic and technical feasibility of gradual strategy • Political economy a crucial element: recent refusal • Other own revenues of local governments diminish: – central government transfers – real estate asset sales and rents – taxing local businesses • Growth in property taxes cannot use present formula • Ad valorem property tax can grow with local economy • Balancing of budgets with property tax, not investments 19 Future Prospects and Challenges (2) • • • • • • • • • Acceptance of recurrent wealth taxation a political issue Newly enfranchised ownes of valuable assets opose Politicians not craving for accountability/transparency Territorial inequity financing of local basic services “Income-poor and asset-rich” property owners issue High potential costs of information support and valuation Searching for mitigating instruments for taxpayers Searching for cost efficient methods for administrators Searching for politically safe modification of tax system 20 Future Prospects and Challenges (3) • Chief beneficiaries - local gov’ts cling to present system – – – – technical simplicity, inexpensive admnistration easy to understand, to verify by taxapayers politically less risky, easier to spend central gov’t money low residential rates allow to ignore equity arguments • Strong forces are mounting for property tax reforms: – – – – – looming public finance crisis calling for more robust revenues increased difficulty to tax incomes in “virtual new economy” the need to stimulate SME sector through lower income taxes higher property taxation should shift the focus to ad valorem valuation and cadastral professional interests 21 All Land Types 22