Content uploaded by Adam Larragy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adam Larragy on Mar 28, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A SITE VALUE TAX FOR IRELAND:
Approach, Design and Implementation
Micheál L. Collins and Adam Larragy
TEP Working Paper No. 1911
December 2011
Trinity Economics Papers
Department of Economics
Trinity College Dublin
1
A SITE VALUE TAX FOR IRELAND:
Approach, Design and Implementation*
Micheál L. Collins
#
, ERU (Economic Research Unit) and Department of Economics, Trinity
College Dublin mcollins@eru.ie / mlcollin@tcd.ie
Adam Larragy, Royal Holloway, University of London larragya@tcd.ie
Keywords: Taxation, Property, Fiscal Policy
JEL codes: H22, H27, H71
____________________________________________________
Abstract
Ireland’s Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the EU/IMF requires government to
introduce a recurring annual property tax. While the MoU has not specified the precise form
this new taxation measure will adopt, commitments in the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014
and Fine Gael/Labour Programme for Government have pointed towards the introduction of
an annual Site Value Tax (SVT). Budget 2011 suggested that the yield from this tax source
would grow from €180m in 2012 to reach €530m in 2014. Similarly the MoU commits
government to raising additional taxation revenues of €1.5bn in 2012 and €1.1bn in 2013
with both to be partly funded by a property tax and increases to that tax.
To date assessments of the feasibility of a SVT (by the Commission of Taxation and the
Department of Finance) have pointed towards a series of practical difficulties associated with
its introduction. This paper outlines a proposal to overcome these difficulties and to introduce
a credible, fair and reliable annual SVT from January 2013. The paper uses the land registry
database of the Property Registration Authority of Ireland (PRAI) to outline the structure and
administration of a SVT.
* The authors wish to acknowledge the input of the following who assisted in the development of this paper:
participants at the 2011 Dublin Economic’s Workshop in Kenmare; John O’Sullivan, Greg McDermott, Shay
Arthur and Jackie Ryan at the PRAI; and participants at an ERU (Economic Research Unit) seminar in
November 2011. The usual disclaimer applies.
# This research was principally undertaken while working as Assistant Professor of Economics at Trinity
College Dublin.
2
A SITE VALUE TAX FOR IRELAND:
Approach, Design and Implementation
Introduction
A Site Value Tax (SVT) or Land Value Tax (LTV) is a recurring annual tax on the value of a site
excluding the value of any improvements or properties. Site value is measured on the basis of the
rental value of the land. A SVT is ordinarily charged as a percentage of the value of a site with regular
valuations undertaken by an independent statutory body. Though a commitment to an SVT was
contained in the National Recovery Plan (2010) and the current Programme for Government (2011),
the Commission on Taxation (2009) and Department of Finance (2011) have both pointed to practical
difficulties preventing implementation. This paper proposes a number of steps to overcome the
problems identified and implement a SVT in Ireland. The SVT proposed is focused on land zoned for
residential use irrespective of whether the site is being used for housing or not. As such, it excludes
agricultural and commercial sites although in the longer term it would be possible to extend the
proposal to commercial sites (replacing rates). The paper uses the land registry database of the
Property Registration Authority of Ireland (PRAI) as a key element of its proposal.
Outside Ireland, a SVT has been implemented in a number of different countries, municipalities and
local authorities including Denmark, Estonia, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the city of Pittsburgh
(US) and some Australian states. To date a series of reviews and studies have examined various
aspects of the SVT as it relates to Ireland (Dunne, 2004; NESC, 2004; CORI Justice 2009,
Commission on Taxation, 2009; Gurdgiev, 2009a, 2009b; and Smart Taxes 2010a, 2010b). This paper
seeks to advance the work already undertaken by focusing on the implementation and administration
of a SVT and the design of an interim measure to precede any comprehensive national valuation
programme. It is possible that, with the necessary administrative work, an interim SVT would be
ready for an announcement in Budget 2013, taking effect on January 1st 2013.
1. The Policy Context
Over the past fifty years, the state has both introduced and removed a number of taxes specifically
levied on residential and commercial property. Domestic rates, local property taxes based on the net
annual valuation of residential housing used to fund local authorities, were abolished in 1978. An
'imputed rental income tax', or tax on the income from the ownership of buildings, was abolished in
1969. A residential property tax (RPT) was introduced on 5 April 1983, whereby residential property
3
owned by an assessable person was charged to tax at a rate 1.5% where the market value of the
property exceeded a limit determined by the New Price Index and the income of an assessable person
exceeded a certain limit. The RPT was abolished on 5 April 1997. At the time of its abolition just 2%
of households paid the RPT. A farm tax based on the concept of 'adjusted acreage' was introduced in
1986 and abolished the following year. Currently, the property taxation regime consists of taxes based
on property transactions (stamp duty; capital gains tax; and capital acquisitions tax), a small non
principal private residences (second homes) tax and commercial rates. Overall, Ireland remains an
exception in the developing world in that it does not have any form of recurring residential property
tax for all dwellings (Collins, 2011).
The Commission on Taxation - which published its report in 2009 - reviewed the feasibility of
introducing a site value tax (SVT) to Ireland and accepted the 'strong economic rationale' behind the
proposal (Commission on Taxation, 2009). However, the Commission did not recommend the
introduction of an SVT because it was felt that there would be significant obstacles preventing the
introduction of the necessary valuation system and that difficulties would arise in communicating the
rationale behind the STV to home-owners and land owners. Instead, the Commission proposed an
annual residential property tax levied on the market value of all residential housing units. The tax
chargeable on a residential property would be determined by the property's location in a list of defined
valuation bands. Based on 2004 house price data, the Commission estimated that a tax rate of 0.25%
applied to the mid-point of their valuation bands would raise €926m annually, while a tax rate of
0.30% could raise €1,112m annually.
The first commitment to a SVT by an Irish government was contained within the Fianna Fáil/Green
Party Revised Programme for Government (2009). The government committed to take the necessary
preliminary steps to introduce an SVT:
'Starting with the necessary valuation and registration process, we will move to introduce a
Site Valuation Tax for non-agricultural land. This system will provide a fair and stable basis
for offsetting stamp duty on residential property.' (Revised Programme for Government,
2009: 4)
The National Recovery Plan 2011-2014, published in December 2010 in the context of the IMF/EU
loan agreement, envisioned the introduction of an SVT 'to fund essential locally-delivered services' in
2012, yielding €180m that budgetary year, €355m in 2013, and a €530m in 2014 (Department of
Finance, 2010a: 12, 91). Subsequently, Budget 2011 incorporated these targets into its projections for
tax revenue – see Table 1.1. The initial €180m in 2012 was to be raised through a levy of €100 on 1.8
million households, while it was estimated that a SVT would be introduced in subsequent years.
The Fine Gael/Labour government elected in 2011 pledged in its Programme for Government (2011)
to:
4
'Consider, arising from the previous Government’s deal with the IMF, various options
for a site valuation tax. Any site valuation tax must take into account the significant
number of households in mortgage distress and provide local government with a
reliable stream of revenue;'
The new government has also committed itself to the conditions contained in the EU/IMF
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Revisions to the MoU, published in April and September of
2011, leave unchanged the fiscal targets contained within the original MoU agreed in 2010. The MoU
commits the government to raising an additional €1.5bn in revenue in 2012, to be partly funded by a
property tax, and an additional €1.1bn in 2013, to be partly funded by an increase in property tax
(EU/IMF, 2011). The MoU does not specify a particular form of property tax. The briefing note to the
incoming minister published by the Department of Finance notes that the Commission on Taxation
recommended against the introduction of a SVT because of ‘very real practical difficulties’ in its
implementation (Department of Finance, 2011: 51). However, it also notes that the MoU commits the
government to a ‘full value-based addition’ by 2013.
Table 1.1 Projected Tax Revenues 2012-2014
2012
2013
2014
€m
€m
€m
Customs
240
250
260
Excise Duties
4,930
5,105
5,280
Capital Gains Tax
480
510
530
Capital Acquisitions Tax
305
330
345
Stamp Duties
990
885
755
Income Tax
16,245
18,040
19,930
Corporation Tax
4,460
4,665
4,895
VAT
10,485
11,120
11,895
Site Value Tax
180
355
530
Total
38,315
41,260
44,420
Source: Department of Finance (2010b: D24).
In late July 2011, the Cabinet agreed to introduce a €100 levy on 1.8 million residential households,
with an expected yield of €160m for the fiscal year 2012. Local authority housing, charity-run
housing and sheltered accommodation, those on the mortgage interest supplement, and those
households living in ghost estates are to be exempt. Table 1.2 presents an estimate of the tax base and
revenue from this flat rate household charge using data from the CSO, Department of Environment,
Community and Local Government and the Department of Social Protection. At the time, the Minister
for Environment, Community and Local Government announced that a value-based property tax
would be introduced in 2014, one year later than the date included in the Department of Finance’s
briefing note.
5
Table 1.2 Estimated Yield of €100 Household Charge
Total Housin
g Stock
2,004,175
Vacant Housing Stock
(
253,209
)
Local Authority
(
136,000
)
Mortgage Interest Supplement
(
17,648
)
Ghost Estates
(
3,769
)
Total Taxable
Housing
stock
1,593,549
Total
Yield
@
€100
per unit
159,354,900
Sources: Calculated using data from DKM/Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government (2009), Department of Social Protection (2011), Kitchen et al (2010) and CSO (2011).
2. Site Value Tax Explained
Origins of the Site Value Tax
The initial proposal can be said to have arisen from the French physiocrats of the 18th century, who
believed that all economic value originated from the land. However, the most redoubtable and
persuasive champion of the SVT was the 19th century American land reformer, Henry George, who
argued in his work Progress and Poverty (1879) for the imposition of an ad valorem property tax on
the value of the underlying land on a site, disregarding the value of any improvements (Gaffney,
2008). In George’s conception the SVT would be a ‘single tax’, replacing existing sales and income
taxes. Feted by Irish-America for his commitment to Irish land reform in the 1880s – he was arrested
for speaking against British rule in Ireland - George believed that a SVT would punish speculation
and encourage a more efficient - and more equitable - use of land. George’s speaking campaigns in
Britain and Ireland in the 1880s had a marked influence on Michael Davitt and more importantly, on
political figures later connected with the British Liberal Party such as Joseph Chamberlain, Winston
Churchill, David Lloyd-George and Herbert Asquith (Murray,1980 and McBride, 2006).
While George’s radical proposal to replace all taxation with a ‘single tax’ on the value of land was not
pursued by the Liberals, a more modest attempt to introduce a SVT in Britain and Ireland – then under
British rule - was contained in the ‘People’s Budget’ introduced in 1909 by the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer David Lloyd-George. Lloyd-George proposed to raise an annual tax on a portion of the
value of undeveloped urban land across Britain and Ireland, and to raise a tax on large ground
landlords to capture some of the unearned increment accruing to them as a result of increases in land
value. The measures were to have been implemented by a revaluation of land throughout Britain and
Ireland. However, the measures, intended to cover expenditures on social insurance and modern
battleships, and encourage more efficient use of urban sites, were defeated by the House of Lords. The
1931 Finance Act introduced in Britain by the Labour government contained a proposal to introduce a
6
‘land value tax’ at the rate of ‘one penny for every pound of the value of every land unit’ (1931: 5).
However, the National Government repealed the act soon after entering office in the summer of 1931.
Why a Site Value Tax?
Proposals for an SVT have attracted an otherwise unusual grouping of economists: prominent
economists who have lent support have ranged from public choice theorists and monetarists through
to Keynesians and more heterodox economists directly influenced by Henry George (Cord, 2003:
604).1 The classic theoretical justification for a tax on the value of land is explained by Marshall
(1890/1997: 249) in his Principles of Economics. Marshall argued that part of the value of property -
the ‘public value of land’ or ‘true rent’ - is the product of nature, government improvements and
spillover effects from adjoining land rather than the products of the owner or cultivator – who adds
improvement or in the case of a farmer enhances the soil – and so a tax on the ‘public value was
justified.
The promoters of a SVT have pointed to the efficiency and equity of the tax - particularly vis-a-vis its
alternatives – and argued that a SVT encourages land use while discouraging urban sprawl and land
speculation assuming the land is valued for tax purposes at its highest and best use. Conversely, taxes
on goods often raise the market price of the good upon which the tax is levied, distorting and reducing
consumption and production. Moreover, the burden of a tax on good ultimately falls on the consumer
- VAT is a case in point. In contrast, Oates and Schwab (2009) have noted that when the value of land
is taxed:
· the burden of the tax falls entirely on the landowner;
· that as the supply of land is fixed, a land tax does not distort the supply of land;
and that a tax on land has no impact on the timing of development.
As there are no distortions, there is consequently no welfare loss (Feldstein, 1977: 357). In
contradistinction, a tax on land and improvements – such as a residential property tax – distorts
economic decisions as it raises the cost of further improvements to a property. Brueckner’s (1986)
analysis of the effects of a land tax shows that if a land tax encompasses an entire housing market the
price of housing will be reduced, the level of improvements will rise and the value of land will fall
Pittsburgh’s implementation of a split-level property tax or graded tax in 1979 – a tax in which the
value of land is taxed more than the value of improvements – provides a possible guide to the effects
of land tax on urban development (Oates & Schwab, 1997). In the context of a fiscal crisis, the City of
1
This list includes eight Nobel prize-winning economists; Milton Friedman, Herbert Simon, Paul Samuelson,
James Tobin, James Buchanan, Franco Modigliani, Robert Solow, and William Vickrey.
7
Pittsburgh increased the land tax aspect of the municipality’s property tax to five times the
improvements rate. There is some evidence to suggest that the tax encouraged greater building
construction in the commercial sector and discouraged urban sprawl by concentrating development in
the commercial centres of the city (Oates & Schawb, 1997; Rybeck, 1991; Plassman et. al., 2000).
Why a Site Value Tax in Ireland?
One of the key problems identified by inquiries into the origins of the economic crisis in Ireland has
been the pro-cyclical stance of Irish fiscal policy, with existing property taxes being amongst the most
pro-cyclical elements. Revenues from taxes on property transactions such as Capital Gains Tax and
Stamp Duty were particularly dependent on both increasing property prices and increasing numbers of
property transactions. In 2007, Capital Gains Tax (CGT) yielded €3,105m and Stamp Duty yielded
€3,185m but by 2010 Capital Gains Tax yielded only €347m while Stamp Duty yielded only €960m.
A Report by the Governor of the Central Bank estimated that cyclical taxes (Corporation Tax, Stamp
Duty and Capital Gains Tax) rose from accounting for 7% of the total tax take in 1987 to 30% in 2006
(Honohan, 2010: 29). The Preliminary Report into Ireland's Banking crisis by Regling and Watson
noted that a property tax would have provided a stable source of revenue to the government in light of
rapid fall in revenue from cyclical transaction taxes (Regling & Watson, 2010: 27). Subsequently, the
report of the Commission on Investigation into the Banking Sector in Ireland (The Nyborg Report)
noted both the lack of a property tax and pro-cyclical Irish fiscal policy during the years of the
property bubble (2011: 70). A SVT, with a broad base and frequent revaluations, would not share the
weaknesses of either CGT or Stamp Duty, and would ensure increased stability in fiscal policy,
preventing the large discrepancies that emerged between projected tax revenue and the final
Exchequer receipts during the property bubble.
Dunne (2004), O’Siochrú (2004), Feasta (2009), Reynolds, Healy and Collins (2011) and Gurdgiev
(2009a) have all critiqued the current system of property taxation based on stamp duty and
development levies – arguing that it incentivises land speculation and discourages efficient
development, exacerbates asset-price bubbles, fails to adequately price public infrastructure and social
amenities investments, and fails to deliver environmentally sustainable and socially equitable
development (Gurdgiev, 2009a: 39-40). Overall, Ireland’s property taxation policies, particularly
policy surrounding tax reliefs, have not encouraged the efficient use of land in recent years; although
the implementation of a windfall gains tax on speculative profits from land rezoning as part of the
2009 National Assets Management Agency Act and Finance Bill 2010 have begun a process of
addressing this.2 Indeed, Kitchin et. al. (2010) argue that property tax incentives interacted with
2
For details see Commission on Taxation chapter 8 (2009) and Collins and Walsh (2010 and 2011).
8
planning decisions to undermine the National Spatial Strategy and facilitate the building boom,
leaving a legacy of housing oversupply. The introduction of a SVT would incentivise developers to
use zoned land rather than hold it as a speculative investment. However, its introduction would have
to be accompanied by extensive dezoning by certain local authorities – something we return to later in
this paper. Though a SVT would be introduced nationally, it would provide a significant advantage to
planners as local authorities could be relatively certain that zoned land would be used given the
expense of holding on to an unused site.
In contrast to the current property tax regime, a SVT would:
· ensure a less pro-cyclical property tax regime
· ensure more efficient use of land
· provide a predictable, stable and recurring flow of revenue to the Exchequer
· contribute to controlling asset-price bubbles
· discourage over-investment in residential property
· discourage speculation in land zoned for residential development
Arguments Against a Site Value Tax
There are both pragmatic, relating to problems of implementation, and theoretical, relating to the
proposal itself, objections to a SVT in Ireland. The Commission on Taxation (2009: 171-173)
concluded that a SVT would be difficult to implement in Ireland given the lack of central database
containing the necessary information, the perception of unfairness on the part of taxpayers due to the
disregarding of improvements, the difficulty of the valuation process itself and the problems
associated with valuation of sites with multiple uses and owners. The Department of Finance have
referred to the ‘practical difficulties’ regarding implementation which are most probably drawn from
the Commission’s findings (Department of Finance, 2011: 51). This paper attempts to find solutions
to the practical difficulties raised by the Commission and Department.
From a theoretical perspective, Bentick (1979; 1982) has argued that a land tax may not be neutral, or
in other words a land tax may distort the use of land, whether in terms of timing or in terms of use.
This occurs if a land tax is levied on the market value of land, rather than on pure land rental. In the
case of a land tax on the market value of land, the land tax will not be neutral between ‘two uses of
land which are mutually exclusive’ (Bentick, 1982: 113). This situation only occurs on a vacant site
where one use requires a specialised capital input which cannot be used profitability over a period of
time T before the second prospective use begins. As such, Bentick notes, if an entrepreneur chooses
the second use he must wait and this waiting period becomes an input into the second use, so that a
tax on the market value of land becomes a tax on waiting. This is not necessarily an argument against
9
a SVT, but it does show that under certain, albeit unlikely, circumstances the SVT is not neutral
between uses and could have some distortionary effects.
Another argument against a SVT rests on moral, rather than economic, grounds. Hartwich’s (2006)
echoes earlier opposition – evident in the debate surrounding the People’s Budget and the 1931
Finance Act - to the SVT, claiming that in a market economy with property rights the SVT would
represent a check to landowners’ freedom and landlord-investors’ activities. Hartwich also points to
equity considerations – more relevant to the Irish case in which an SVT would fall on zoned
residential property alone - where two households on equivalent sites but of differing size and quality
houses would face an equivalent tax. This is an unfortunate possibility resulting from the imposition
of a SVT, but may be less of a factor in Ireland as house prices were driven by increases in the market
price of land rather than the increase in the price of building materials (Drudy and Collins, 2011:5).
Site Value Tax in Other Jurisdictions
Recurring land and property taxes are common in most OECD countries. However, many of these
taxes apply to land and property rather than land alone. A number of national and municipal
governments utilise a site value tax (SVT) including the Republic of China (Taiwan), Estonia,
Denmark, Australian state governments and a number of municipal governments throughout the
world.
Taiwan’s policy on land value taxation derives from the economic philosophy of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, the
founder of the 1912 Chinese Republic, and is enshrined in the 1954 Statute for the Equalization of
Urban Land Right (Lam, 2000: 327). It levies an SVT on both urban and rural land based on a
'standard' valuation (the 'Official Declared Valuation') undertaken by the government's Real-Estate
Valuation Committee (World Bank, 2011: 31). The standard valuation is updated and published
annually and is usually less than the market price. The rate of SVT payable is dependent on land use:
urban land for residential use is taxed annually at 0.2%; urban land for industrial use at 1%; and urban
land for non-industrial use is taxed progressively at 1-5.5%, depending on the value of the land
(Ministry of Finance R.O.C, 2010: 128). Vacant lots in urban areas are taxed at two to five times the
basic land tax payable on an equivalent lot (Ministry of Finance R.O.C, 2010: 129). Table 2.1 outlines
the scale of the SVT receipts in Taiwan from 2003-2010. Local authorities also levy additional
property taxes – the somewhat misleadingly named 'House Tax' - based on the assessed value and the
use of property. Taiwanese local authorities are responsible for the collection of SVT and other
property taxes and derive the majority of their funding from those sources. The combined land value
tax and land value increment tax accounted for 7.4% of total tax revenue in the RoC in 2009 (Ministry
of Finance R.O.C, 2010: 3).
10
Table 2.1 Site Value Tax receipts, Republic of China Taiwan, 2003-2010.
Year
Total Tax Revenue
(NT$’000)
Land Value Tax
(NT$’000)
Land
Value
Tax as % of
Total Tax revenue
2003
NT$1,220,116,161
NT$50,762,035
4.16
2004
NT$1,353,409,510
NT$52,617,195
3.89
2005
NT$1,531,297,226
NT$53,705,856
3.51
2006
NT$1,556,651,792
NT$54,660,359
3.51
2007
NT$1,685,875,406
NT$59,008,809
3.50
2008
NT$1,710,617,299
NT$59,126,928
3.46
2009
NT$1,483,518,036
NT$59,053,891
3.98
2010
NT$1,565,847,055
NT$63,044,266
4.03
Source: Ministry of Finance R.O.C, 2010.
Estonia introduced a site value tax in 1993, two years after independence from Soviet rule. Land
values are assessed by a National Land Board (Tomson, 2000). Taxes vary between 0.1% and 2.5%
while a rate of 1% applies to residential land (Deloitte, 2011a). Though initially split between the
national and municipal governments, land taxes have been used since 1996 to fund municipal
government alone. As table 2.2 shows, these account for approximately 1% of national taxation
revenue.
Table 2.2 Site Value Tax receipts for Estonia, 2000-2010.
Year
Total Tax Revenue
(€’000)
Land Value Tax
(€’000)
Land
Value
Tax as % of
Total Tax revenue
2000
€1,878,915
€23,944
1.27
2001
€2,051,897
€25,402
1.24
2002
€2,350,909
€26,951
1.15
2003
€2,641,677
€28,709
1.09
2004
€2,899,749
€30,370
1.05
2005
€3,379,951
€32,325
0.96
2006
€4,070,628
€33,065
0.81
2007
€5,003,975
€35,304
0.71
2008
€5,291,644
€48,260
0.91
2009
€4,767,938
€48,227
1.01
2010
€4,695,810
€51,297
1.09
Source: Statistics Estonia (www.stat.ee/statistics)
The Australian federal government introduced a land value tax in the 1910, with the intention of
breaking up large estates (Forster, 2000). The first £5,000 of unimproved land was exempt the rates
were low for all but the largest estates. While the federal land tax was abolished in 1953, subsequently
each state has retained a land tax, which varies in its composition. Each state varies its rate of tax, list
of exemptions and Office of the Valuer-General. However, each Valuer-General utilises the services
11
of the Australian Valuation Office. For example, New South Wales (NSW) applies a tax of AUS$100
plus 1.6% between the threshold of AUS$387,000 and the premium threshold of AUS$2,366,000. A
rate of 2% applies above the premium threshold. In NSW, the primary residence and farming land is
exempt from the land value tax. However, as table 2.3 shows, the land value tax remains an important
source of local taxation.
Table 2.3 Site Value Tax receipts for New South Wales, 2000-2010.
Year
Total Tax revenue
(AUD$m)
Land value tax
(AUD$m)
Land Tax as % of Total Tax
2000
$13,343
$929
6.96
2001
$13,216
$1,001
7.57
2002
$14,153
$1,136
8.03
2003
$15,026
$1,355
9.02
2004
$15,332
$1,646
10.74
2005
$15,910
$1,717
10.79
2006
$17,705
$2,036
11.50
2007
$18,557
$1,937
10.44
2008
$17,864
$2,252
12.61
2009
$19,150
$2,296
11.99
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au/)
Denmark has one of the longest traditions of implementing land value taxes. In an effort to restore the
public finances after a war with Sweden, the Danish crown introduced a tax based on potential
agricultural yields in the 1660s, and completed a complete land valuation in 1685 (Leffman & Larsen,
2000). The 'hartkorn' tax was extended to manorial lands in the nineteenth century, and came to
account for nearly 50% of government revenue in the mid-1800s. The 'hartkorn tax' was abolished and
replaced with property and income taxes in 1903 but following a political struggle between large and
small landowners, a new regime of property taxation was introduced, with a lower level levied on
improvements and higher level chargeable on land. However, during the 1960s the Danish tax system
was radically changed: the tax on incremental land values was abolished, and increasingly taxes on
consumption and income were increasingly relied upon. In 1960 land taxes accounted for 5.0% of
total tax revenue and declined to accounting for 1.5% of total tax revenue in 1997 – see table 2.4
(Leffman & Larsen, 2000: 188). Currently, land value taxes are collected and used by local
authorities, with rates ranging from 1.6% to 3.4% (Deloitte, 2011b).
12
Table 2.4 Site Value Tax Receipts, Denmark, 2000-2010.
Year
Total Tax Revenue
(DKK million)
Land Value Tax
(DKK million)
Land Tax as % of Total
Tax
2000
DKK 640,557
DKK 8,404
1.31
2001
DKK 649,243
DKK 9,502
1.46
2002
DKK 658,762
DKK 10,156
1.54
2003
DKK 674,612
DKK 10,151
1.50
2004
DKK 720,875
DKK 10,500
1.46
2005
DKK 787,955
DKK 10,935
1.39
2006
DKK 812,175
DKK 11,334
1.40
2007
DKK 831,566
DKK 11,711
1.41
2008
DKK 839,067
DKK 12,118
1.44
2009
DKK 798,912
DKK 12,362
1.55
2010
DKK 842,161
DKK 12,450
1.48
Source: Statistics Denmark (http://www.dst.dk)
3. The Property Registration Authority of Ireland Database
This paper proposes that the government use the land registry database managed by the Property
Registration Authority of Ireland (PRAI) as the basis of the introduction of a SVT from January 2013.
The PRAI database contains all registered titles – covering 93% of the land area of the country –
including the deed of transfer, maps and other relevant documents such as charges on the property
(i.e. the Fair Deal scheme). Every registered title has a reference file, or folio, opened in relation to the
title.
The Property Registration Authority of Ireland
The PRAI was established on 4 November 2006 under the provisions of the Registration of Deeds and
Titles Act 2006. The main functions of the PRAI – a statutory authority - are to manage and control
the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds and to promote and extend the registration of ownership
of land. These functions were previously carried out by the Register of Deeds and Titles. The voted
expenditure for the PRAI for 2011 was €36,402,000.3
3
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform database: http://databank.per.gov.ie/
13
The PRAI Database
The PRAI have constructed an online database at landdirect.ie, which contains information about all
registered sites in the country on the property’s associated folio:
· this includes the electoral district in which the folio is located;
· the address of the registered site;
· the name of the owner of the site;
· the address of the owner of the site;
· any charges on the property;
· any rights of way on the property;
· and floor plans relating to multi-storey developments such as buildings and apartments.
The database contains a searchable map with underlying Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSi) detail
together with Land Registry detail and an accompanying header page denoting the registered
properties within a selected area. Importantly, the map contains accurate boundary information on
properties, with each individual property having a unique identifier in the PRAI database attached to a
property’s folio.
The landdirect.ie website can be accessed by members of the public who register for an account with
the PRAI. The PRAI is obliged by statute to place a fee on requests for a particular folio, though the
landdirect.ie map may be searched at no charge by registered users and information accessed on:
· the name of a folio;
· the plan number;
· location;
· and size of a particular property in hectares.
The landdirect.ie database is not complete, reflecting gaps in the Land Registry itself. Most of the 7%
of the unregistered land area is located in urban areas - particularly Dublin, where nearly 50% of land
remains unregistered. Completion of the Land Registry is required under the EU INSPIRE directive
which requires the harmonisation of spatial datasets, including property data, by 2019. An element of
this paper’s proposals is that the state would grant, on a one-off basis, additional resources to the
PRAI so that during 2012 it could complete the digital land registry thereby providing a database to
manage all land transactions and to administer a SVT.
14
Example from the PRAI website
This example shows a representative page from the PRAI database’s search. The properties in
question are in a housing estate in West Dublin. Using the database a map of the selected area can be
extracted. Using the data contained on the PRAI map the data in Table 3.1 can be extracted. While
information on land boundaries used to be based on landscape features, the database uses geo-
coordinates for boundary information.
Table 3.1: Example of data from the PRAI database
Plan No.
Folio No.
*
Hectares
Metres
Squared
BG92
DN
XXX
F
0.031
310
239J1
DNXXXF
0.033
330
705
DNXXXF
0.036
360
241J
DNXXXF
0.032
320
701
DNXXXF
0.029
290
GW52
DNXXXF
0.146
1460
Source: PRAI Database (2011).
Note: * Folio numbers have been generalised for reasons of privacy.
15
The information required to determine the incidence of the tax liability arising from ownership of
residential land can be extracted from the folio, which contains the name and address of the owners of
a property.
Problems to be Resolved on the PRAI Database
The primary obstacles in implementing a STV in Ireland are the:
· lack of data on the value of sites
· lack of integration of zoning information with PRAI database
· gaps in the PRAI database, particularly in urban areas and in multi-storey developments
The first problem is a long term issue, and we suggest that valuation should commence on registered
properties as soon as feasible. A fair and transparent valuation methodology should be chosen by
policymakers and implemented using the PRAI database as a source. In the interim the SVT proposal
outlined in part four of this paper could be implemented without the need for valuations.
Implementation of a SVT would be enhanced by integration of zoning information kept by local
authorities with the PRAI database. While it is possible to introduce a SVT without this information,
the integration of zoning data would make the introduction of an SVT much easier. The final problem
must be resolved to announce an interim SVT in Budget 2013. Properties that remain unregistered
must be registered and placed on the PRAI database. In section four of this paper the steps and
funding necessary to complete the digital database are detailed.
4. Implementing and Administering a Site Value Tax for Ireland
Moving towards a full SVT – a tax based on the value of a site – will require the valuation of
underlying land as distinct from the value of a property. To achieve this, further work is required to
identify an appropriate method of valuation and the subsequent creation of a registry containing
valuations for every residential property in the country – using the PRAI database seems the
appropriate starting point. In the interim, this paper proposes that the PRAI database be utilised to
create an immediate/interim SVT, to precede the implementation of a full SVT. Our proposal would
replace the household charge with a SVT in Budget 2013, commencing on January 1st 2013.
16
Regarding the scale of the SVT, we assume that the government will raise at least €300m from a SVT
in 2013 and will subsequently increase it towards the projected €530m in 2014 (see table 1.1).4
At its core, the intention of any SVT is to capture the underlying value of developed land. In general,
the value of a site derives from its location and access to publicly funded or subsidised services,
facilities and utilities. As such, sites in rural areas are worth less than those in urban areas, irrespective
of how they are being used. However, rural developed sites are beneficiaries of some public services -
fire brigades, roads, bridges, school transport among others. The provision and availability of publicly
funded or subsidised services, facilities and utilities increases as you move from rural to urban areas
and increases further as you move from small urban settlements through to larger towns and to cities.
As a consequence, the underlying value of sites (ignoring their use and development) is positively
correlated with urbanisation and allows us to structure our SVT proposal using local authority
boundaries as dividing lines between areas with varying public service provisions.
The SVT structure we propose levies the charge per square meter of a site with different rates per
square meter in areas depending on their level of urbanisation. Sites in small towns would pay €0.55
per square meter per annum where a small town is defined as one governed by a local council and
with a population of less than 10,000 residents. Larger towns, with more than 10,000 residents and
town councils, would pay €0.65 per square meter per annum – a higher charge compared to small
towns reflecting the more substantial provision of publicly funded or subsidised services, facilities
and utilities. In cities, our proposal distinguishes between Dublin and Non-Dublin city council areas.
Outside Dublin the annual charge per square meter would be €0.75 and in the area covered by the four
Dublin City councils the charge would be €0.85 per meter squared.
In rural areas, defined as those under the control of county councils, the aforementioned reduced
access to publicly funded or subsidised services, facilities and utilities suggests a lower rate per square
meter. However, the attachment of many rural residential sites to agricultural land, and the large site
size of many others (a legacy of past planning decisions), provides some problems for extending a
charge per square meter to rural sites. In particular, the structuring of the SVT on a per square meter
basis in rural Ireland would produce high site charges relative to urban areas (even on a low rate per
square meter), thereby undermining the principal of relating the burden of the SVT to the scale of
public service provision. Consequently, we propose that the SVT be charged as a flat €100 charge per
residence in rural Ireland.
Overall, table 4.1 summarises the proposed annual SVT rates per square meter. Later in this section,
we further explore how these rates can be applied to privately owned apartments or flat complexes.
4
The SVT proposal is not predicated on these figures and through altering the area rates could raise lower or
higher sums of revenue.
17
Table 4.1 Proposed Annual SVT rates per Square Meter
Spatial Category
Rate per m
2
Area
Urban
-
Dublin
€0.85
Dublin City Councils
Urban
-
Non
-
Dublin
€0.75
Non
-
Dublin City Councils
Urban
-
Large
€0.65
Large Town Councils (>10,000 pop.)
Urban
-
Small
€0.55
Small Town Councils (<10,000 pop.)
Rural
€100 flat charge
Rural
County Councils
Implementing the Interim Site Value Tax
Using the PRAI database, the tax liability for any individual property may be calculated. This section
will use a set of examples from the PRAI database to illustrate the interim SVT in action – first
looking at houses and then apartments.
Houses
The examples we use are selected to be representative of different site sizes and property types
throughout Ireland, at least in large towns and cities. They include:
· Terraced houses on a small site
· Average suburban houses with a small garden
· Dwellings on a large site
· Dwellings on a very large site
The properties used in these examples are from Cork city and were selected as examples based on
their representativeness. The examples include maps showing the outline of the individual properties
and their plan numbers. The accompanying tables include details on the size of an individual site, and
the calculated SVT liability based on the size of the property in any of the four urban areas outlined in
table 4.1. The tables do not include the folio number on the grounds of privacy for the owners of these
properties; however to compile the tables the folio number was needed and using it the names and
addresses of the registered owners may be extracted quickly from the PRAI database.
18
Terraced houses on a small site
Map 4.1 Map of terraced houses on a small site
Source: © PRAI database (2011)
Table 4.2 SVT rates for Terraces houses on a small site in four urban areas
Site Value Tax by Urban Location
Plan Hectares m
2
Dublin Non-Dub
Large
Town
Small
Town
326
0.012
120
€102.00
€90.00
€78.00
€66.00
278
0.012
120
€102.00
€90.00
€78.00
€66.00
385
0.013
130
€110.50
€97.50
€84.50
€71.50
279
0.012
120
€102.00
€90.00
€78.00
€66.00
280
0.013
130
€110.50
€97.50
€84.50
€71.50
325
0.012
120
€102.00
€90.00
€78.00
€66.00
281
0.011
110
€93.50
€82.50
€71.50
€60.50
282
0.014
140
€119.00
€105.00
€91.00
€77.00
358
0.013
130
€110.50
€97.50
€84.50
€71.50
358
0.012
120
€102.00
€90.00
€78.00
€66.00
19
Average suburban houses with a small garden
Table 4.2 Map of average suburban houses with a small garden
Source: © PRAI database (2011)
Table 4.3 SVT rates for Average suburban houses with a small garden in four urban areas
Site Value Tax by Urban Location
Plan Hectares m
2
Dublin Non-Dub
Large
Town
Small
Town
A10VW 0.024 240 €204.00 €180.00 €156.00 €132.00
A12R3 0.026 260 €221.00 €195.00 €169.00 €143.00
392 0.023 230 €195.50 €172.50 €149.50 €126.50
A2QPB 0.021 210 €178.50 €157.50 €136.50 €115.50
396 0.022 220 €187.00 €165.00 €143.00 €121.00
401 0.022 220 €187.00 €165.00 €143.00 €121.00
A1WKM 0.026 260 €221.00 €195.00 €169.00 €143.00
389 0.026 260 €221.00 €195.00 €169.00 €143.00
A6B4H 0.047 470 €399.50 €352.50 €305.50 €258.50
B6D9A/B6D3T 0.069 690 €586.50 €517.50 €448.50 €379.50
20
Dwellings on a large site
Map 4.3 Map of dwellings on a large site
Source: © PRAI database (2011)
Table 4.4 SVT rates for dwellings on a large site in four urban areas
Site Value Tax by Urban Location
Plan Hectares m
2
Dublin Non-Dub
Large
Town
Small
Town
51 0.109 1,090 €926.50 €817.50 €708.50 €599.50
41 0.082 820 €697.00 €615.00 €533.00 €451.00
52 0.083 830 €705.50 €622.50 €539.50 €456.50
44 0.102 1,020 €867.00 €765.00 €663.00 €561.00
47 0.109 1,090 €926.50 €817.50 €708.50 €599.50
46 0.078 780 €663.00 €585.00 €507.00 €429.00
48 0.097 970 €824.50 €727.50 €630.50 €533.50
43 0.146 1,460 €1,241.00 €1,095.00 €949.00 €803.00
45 0.122 1,220 €1,037.00 €915.00 €793.00 €671.00
51 0.109 1,090 €926.50 €817.50 €708.50 €599.50
21
Dwellings on a very large site
Map 4.4 Map of dwellings on a very large site
Source: © PRAI database (2011)
Table 4.5 SVT rates for dwellings on a very large site in four urban areas
Site Value Tax by Urban Location
Plan Hectares m
2
Dublin Non-Dub
Large
Town
Small
Town
44 0.128 1,280 €1,088.00 €960.00 €832.00 €704.00
BG4U7 0.124 1,240 €1,054.00 €930.00 €806.00 €682.00
28 0.144 1,440 €1,224.00 €1,080.00 €936.00 €792.00
A8X83 0.403 4,030 €3,425.50 €3,022.50 €2,619.50 €2,216.50
36 0.091 910 €773.50 €682.50 €591.50 €500.50
Apartments and Flats
Apartments and flat complexes differ from houses in that, while they benefit from the provision of
public services to and around their dwelling, they share a site – essentially using urban zoned
residential land more efficiently than houses. Our proposal for a SVT suggests that both individual
apartments and the underlying site are taxed. The taxation schedule for apartments is contained in
Table 4.6. The liability for the site should fall on the listed owner of the folio, generally management
22
companies, while liability for apartments should fall on the listed owners of the apartments which are
in general listed in the folio. We propose that the rates for apartments be set at 100 times the rate per
square meter in each spatial category. The rate for the underlying site should be set at one-third of the
rate per square meter in each spatial category.
Table 4.6 Proposed Annual SVT Rates for Apartments and Flats
Spatial Category
Rate per
m2.
Apartment SVT rate
(area rate x 100)
SVT per m
2
of the
apartment site
Urban
-
Dublin
€0.85
€85.00
per unit
33% of the area rate per m
2
Urban
-
Non
-
Dublin
€0.75
€75.00
per unit
33% of the area rate per m
2
Urban
-
Large
€0.65
€65.00
per unit
33% of the
area rate per m
2
Urban
-
Small
€0.55
€55.00
per unit
33% of the area rate per m
2
To illustrate how a SVT might work for apartments, we present two examples of apartment
complexes. The first complex displays a lower density (building to land ratio), with a large amount of
land used for open space and gardening. The second demonstrates a case where an apartment complex
is high density, with all the land area used for the apartment building. As before, the examples include
maps showing the outline of the apartment complexes and the accompanying tables include details on
the size of an individual site, the number of apartments on it and the calculated tax liability based on
the size of the property in any of the four urban areas outlined in table 4.1.
23
Map 4.5 Map of Apartment Complex – low density
Source: © PRAI database (2011)
Table 4.7 SVT rates for low density apartment complex
PRAI
Folio Hectares m
2
No. of
Apartments Dublin Non-Dub
Large
Town
Small
Town
Site Value Tax per apartment
DN100494F 0.875 8750 97 €85.00 €75.00 €65.00 €55.00
Site Value Tax per complex
€2,454.38 €2,165.63 €1,876.88 €1,588.13
Total Site Value Tax yield
€10,699.38 €9,440.63 €8,181.88 €6,923.13
Average yield per apartment*
€110.30 €97.33 €84.35 €71.37
Note: * This assumes that all apartments contribute equally to the management charges for the complex. Where
this is not the case, smaller units should experience a lower overall SVT compared to larger unit owners.
24
Map 4.6 Map of Apartment Complex – high density
Source: © PRAI database (2011)
Table 4.8 SVT rates for a high density apartment complex
PRAI
Folio Hectares m
2
No. of
Apartments Dublin Non-Dub
Large
Town
Small
Town
Site Value Tax per apartment
CK87271F 0.073 730 35 €85.00 €75.00 €65.00 €55.00
Site Value Tax per complex
€204.77 €180.68 €156.59 €132.50
Total Site Value Tax yield
€2,975.00 €2,625.00 €2,275.00 €1,925.00
Average yield per apartment*
€90.85 €80.16 €69.47 €58.79
Note: * This assumes that all apartments contribute equally to the management charges for the complex. Where
this is not the case, smaller units should experience a lower overall SVT compared to larger unit owners.
One impediment to the implementation of these proposals for apartments stems as a legacy of the last
decades building boom. In many cases apartment complexes throughout the country remain
unregistered (i.e. their record on the PRAI land registry database is incomplete) and in the set-up
25
phase of any SVT the PRAI would need to complete their registrations including collecting
submissions of the necessary documents such as floor plans.
Administering a Site Value Tax
In the process of establishing the SVT, a series of administrative issues and decisions arise regarding
the tax. Our recommendations regarding these include:
· A need to establish a stand-alone agency, or section within the Revenue Commissioners,
charged with the responsibility of administering and collecting the SVT.
· Following the proposals of the Commission on Taxation (2009) we propose that a deferral,
rather than exemption, method be established for those taxpayers who are unable to pay
the SVT once it is due. Deferring the charge would result in the tax being placed as a charge
against the property which could subsequently be cleared when the property owner is able to
do so, or when the house is sold or transferred. A scheme to place charges against properties
is already in place by the state via the ‘Fair Deal’ scheme and is administered by the HSE
who make requests for these charges to be put in place by the PRAI. A deferral scheme for
the SVT would adopt a similar approach.
· While the establishment of a deferral scheme protects the living standards of low-income
families and owners who are unable to pay the SVT, it also, in the longer term, protects the
stability of the tax base. However, it would seem appropriate for the state to limit any
interest charges on these deferrals to no more than equal to the ECB benchmark
interest rate. It would also seem appropriate to place a limit on the maximum value that
such charges could reach – such as 20% of the property’s value.
· The Department of Finance would need to consider the merits of a reduced or deferred
SVT for residences who paid stamp duty in the 7 years prior to the Budget 2011 stamp
duty reforms.
· Simplicity in the communication and collection of the SVT would also need to be a priority
from the outset. Ideally, property owners should be able to avail of multiple methods by
which they could pay the tax – through payroll deductions, amendments to tax credits,
incorporating into self-assessed tax returns, adjustments to social welfare transfer entitlements
or as a bi-annual lump sum administered through a simple to use website along the lines of
that currently in place for the non-principal private residences (NPPR) annual charge. While
the tax is likely to start as a low amount, over time the commitments under the National
Recovery Plan 2011-2014 and the MOU suggest it will at least double, if not triple, for most
households. In that context, the need for convenience of payment is central to the
acceptability and sustainability of the SVT.
26
· An appeal mechanism should be established so that owners who are unhappy with the
nature and scale of their SVT can have their tax demand examined. In particular, issues are
likely to arise regarding disputed pieces of property, boarders of sites and for households on
the edge of various local authority divisions. Such a mechanism is likely to be used
intensively in the early year of two of the tax and subsequently the demand for this service
should diminish significantly.
· Where properties are sold during a calendar year, the SVT should operate on a pro-rata
basis along the lines of that which currently apply to motor taxes when cars are sold. The task
of administering this should be incorporated in the tasks performed by solicitors as part of the
exchange of house purchase contracts.
· Once the SVT has been established the new SVT agency, or section of the Revenue
Commissioners, should commence work to identify a means of setting up a formal site
valuation process which would allow a full SVT to replace our interim measure over the
course of three years (i.e. by 2016).
Tasks to Complete in Advance of SVT Implementation
To allow a SVT to be implemented from January 2013 a series of tasks would need to be completed
by the PRAI. These are:
· The completion of the landdirect.ie database to incorporate all of the missing parts of the
country (7% of the national land mass) mainly in urban areas – particularly Dublin.
· The completion of the registration of some apartment complexes that have been developed
over the last decade including the formal logging of ownership and management company
details.
· The recalculation of the site size of houses built prior to the 1960s that face onto roads. In
some cases, properties extend to the middle of a road adjacent to the property. While this
confers ownership of that part of the road, it does not confer private use of the road which
instead remains open to public use. As such, the area attached to a site beside a road which
the property-owner does not have use of should not be taxed, in line with the principles of the
SVT more generally.
· The splitting-out of sites/folios where there is a mixture of commercial and residential use. In
such cases, the commercial unit would continue to be liable to local authority rates and the
residential unit would become liable for a SVT calculated in accordance with the proposals
outlined earlier in section 4.
· The identification of sites that have been derelict for many decades.
27
· The identification of land zoned residential but as yet undeveloped which would become
liable for the SVT unless it is dezoned.
· The creation of the infrastructure (layers) on the landdirect database which would allow the
PRAI to administer SVT originating charges against particular properties.
· The establishment of a process during the lead-up to the SVTs introduction where the stand-
alone agency, or section within the Revenue Commissioners, in conjunction with the PRAI
contacts the registered owners of all zones sites and informs them of their official site size and
the consequent SVT liability that would arise from 2013.
As part of establishing the current landdirect database, the PRAI invested approximately €5m to
transform the previous Land Registry records into an electronic database. We propose that in 2013
one-off funding of €25m should be provided to the PRAI to complete the database and address the
other issues outlined above. Such expenditure would be a one-off cost for the exchequer, necessary to
establish a practical and reliable structure for the SVT. At a cost of between 7-8% of the first year’s
revenue, such expenditure would be a prudent investment in the establishment of a recurring revenue
source.
Aside from the PRAI, there are tasks to be completed by other agencies. As the tax falls on all zoned
residential sites, local authorities may wish to review the appropriateness of some past zoning
decisions and commence, or accelerate, a process of dezoning land. In many cases the ‘beneficiaries’
of these zoning decisions may request this process in advance of the SVTs introduction. Reflecting
our proposals in the previous subsection, the Revenue Commissioners and/or the newly formed SVT
agency would need to commence preparation for the introduction of the SVT. Taken together, these
processes would require some additional exchequer expenditure – but this would be small in scale
relative to the annual, and recurring, yield from the SVT.
5. Conclusion
Whether property taxes are perceived as welcome initiatives or not (and economists generally
consider them as welcome and efficient), the reality of Ireland’s current fiscal position is that we are
committed to introducing some form of recurring property tax under the terms of the EU/IMF
Memorandum of Understanding.
This paper has outlined a proposal to develop a site value tax (SVT) structured with a charge per
square meter of a site. At its core, the intention of any SVT is to capture the underlying value of
developed land. In general, the value of a site derives from its location and access to publicly funded
or subsidised services, facilities and utilities. As such, sites in rural areas are worth less than those in
28
urban areas, irrespective of how they are being used. However, rural developed sites are beneficiaries
of some public services - fire brigades, roads, bridges, school transport among others. The provision
and availability of publicly funded or subsidised services, facilities and utilities increases as you move
from rural to urban areas and increases further as you move from small urban settlements through to
larger towns and to cities. As a consequence, the underlying value of sites (ignoring their use and
development) is positively correlated with urbanisation and allows us to structure our SVT proposal
using local authority boundaries as dividing lines between areas with varying public service
provisions. Therefore, our proposal suggests that sites in small towns would pay €0.55 per square
meter per annum where a small town is defined as one governed by a local council and with a
population of less than 10,000 residents. Larger towns, with more than 10,000 residents and town
councils, would pay €0.65 per square meter per annum – a higher charge compared to small towns
reflecting the more substantial provision of publicly funded or subsidised services, facilities and
utilities. In cities, our proposal distinguishes between Dublin and Non-Dublin city council areas.
Outside Dublin the annual charge per square meter would be €0.75 and in the area covered by the four
Dublin City councils the charge would be €0.85 per meter squared. In rural areas, defined as those
under the control of county councils, we propose a flat €100 charge per residence.
Overall, the proposal offers a way for government to adhere to the MoU requirements and introduce a
stable and recurring revenue source which will yield at least €300m in its initial year from January
2013 – the SVT would average of approximately €175 per residential site with rates much lower for
small sites, apartments and rural dwellings and higher for urban dwellings on large sites.
In the past, while the concept of a SVT has been embraced as the ideal route for property taxes in
Ireland, the feasibility of its implementation has been questioned. The recent creation and availability
of the Property Registration Authority of Ireland’s (PRAI) database overcomes most of the technical
impediments to a SVT proposal and, as this paper shows, it is now possible to pursue this policy and
establish a recurring and stable property based revenue stream for the exchequer from 2013.
29
References
Bentick, B. L. (1982), ‘A Tax on Land may not be Neutral’, National Tax Journal, 35(1), 113.
Bentick, B.L. (1979), ‘The Impact of Taxation and Valuation Practices on the Timing and Efficiency
of Land Use’, Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 859-868.
Brueckner, J. K. (1986), ‘A Modern Analysis of the Effects of Site Value Taxation’, National Tax
Journal, 39(1), 49-58.
Central Statistics Office (2011), Census 2011 – Preliminary Results, Dublin, Stationery Office.
Collins M.L. (2011). “Taxation”. In O’Hagan, J. and C. Newman (eds.), The Economy of Ireland
(11th edition). Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Collins, M.L. and M. Walsh (2010), Ireland’s Tax Expenditure System: International Comparisons
and a Reform Agenda – Studies in Public Policy No. 24, Dublin, Policy Institute, Trinity College
Dublin.
Collins, M.L. and M. Walsh (2011), Tax Expenditures: Information and Revenue Forgone – the
experience of Ireland. Trinity Economic Papers Series, 2011/12.
Collins, M.L., S. Healy and B. Reynolds (eds.) (2010), An Agenda for a New Ireland – Socio
Economic Review 2010, Dublin, Social Justice Ireland.
Commission of Investigation into the Banking Sector in Ireland (2011), Misjudging Risk: Causes of
the Systemic Banking Crisis in Ireland. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Commission on Taxation (2009), Commission on Taxation Report 2009, Dublin: Stationery Office.
Cord, S. (2003), “Invited Comment on Warren Samuels's ‘Speculative Memorandum’”, American
Journal of Economics & Sociology, 62(3), 601-605.
CORI Justice (2009), Submission to the Commission on Taxation. Dublin, CORI Justice.
Deloitte (2011a), Denmark: International Tax Guide.
Deloitte (2011b), Denmark: International Tax and Business Guide.
Department of Finance (2010a), National Recovery Plan, 2011-2014, Dublin: Stationery Office.
Department of Finance (2010b), Budget 2011, Dublin, Stationery Office.
Department of Finance (2011), Incoming Minister Brief 2011 (Partially Redacted).
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/foi/2011/
Department of Social Protection (2011), Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services 2010.
Dublin: Stationery Office.
Drudy, P.J. and M.L. Collins (2011). Ireland: From Boom to Austerity. Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society – September .
Dunne, T. (2004), “Land Values as a Source of Local Government Finance” in B. Reynolds, and S.
Healy (eds.) A Fairer Tax System for a Fairer Ireland, Dublin, CORI Justice Commission.
EU/IMF Programme of Finance Support for Ireland July 2011, Dublin: Department of Finance.
EU/IMF Programme of Finance Support for Ireland September2011, Dublin: Department of Finance.
30
Feasta (2009), Submission to the Commission on Taxation. Dublin, Feasta.
Feldstein, M. (1977), ‘The Surprising Incidence of a Tax on Pure Rent’, Journal of Political
Economy, 85(2), 349-60.
Fianna Fáil/The Green Party (2009), Renewed Programme for Government. Dublin
Fine Gael/The Irish Labour Party (2011), Programme for Government. Dublin
Forster, G.A., ‘Australia’ in R.V. Andelson, ‘Land-Value Taxation around the World’, The American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 59(5), 399-417.
Gaffney, M. (2008), "George, Henry (1839–1897)", in S.N. Durlauf and L.E. Blume (eds.), The New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Second Edition, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics
Online, Palgrave Macmillan.
Gurdgiev, C. (2009a), Land Value Taxation and other Measures for Raising Public Investment
Revenue: A Comparative Study. Dublin, Feasta.
Gurdgiev, C. (2009b), Macroeconomic Case for a Land Value Tax Reform in Ireland. Dublin, Feasta.
Hartwich, Oliver Marc (2006), ‘Taxing Land Value is just another Questionable Tax’, Economic
Affairs,26(4), 61-63.
Honohan, P. et. al. (2010), The Irish Banking Crisis: Regulatory and Banking Stability, 2003-2008.
Dublin: Stationery Office.
Kitchen, R., J. Gleeson, K. Keaveney, C. O’Callaghan (2010), A Haunted Landscape: Housing and
Ghost Estates in Post-Celtic Tiger Ireland. NIRSA: NUI Maynooth.
Lam, A.H.S. (2000), ‘Republic of China (Taiwan)’ in R.V. Andelson (ed.), ‘Land-Value Taxation
around the World’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59(5), 327-337.
Lefmann, O. & K.K. Larsen (2000), ‘Denmark’ in R.V. Andelson (ed.), ‘Land-Value Taxation around
the World’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59(5), pp. 185-205.
Marshall, A. (1890/1997), Principles of Economics, New York: Prometheus Books.
McBride, T. (2006), ‘John Ferguson, Michael Davitt and Henry George—Land for the People’, Irish
Studies Review, 14(4), 421-430.
Ministry of Finance R.O.C (2010), Guide to RoC Taxes 2010. Taiwan: Ministry of Finance.
Murray, B.K. (1980), The People's Budget, 1909-10: Lloyd George and Liberal Politics, New York:
Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press.
National Economic and Social Council (2004), Housing in Ireland: performance and policy, Dublin,
NESC.
O’Siochru, E. (2004), “Land Value Tax: unfinished business” in B. Reynolds, and S. Healy (eds.) A
Fairer Tax System for a Fairer Ireland, Dublin, CORI Justice Commission.
Oates, W. E., and R.M. Schwab (1997), ‘The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh
Experience’, National Tax Journal 50 (1), 1–21.
Plassman, F. & T.N.Tidemann (2000), ‘A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-
Rate Property Taxes on Construction’, Journal of Urban Economics, 47(2) , 216-247.
31
Regling, K. and M. Watson (2010), A Preliminary Report into the Sources of Ireland’s Banking
Crisis, Dublin: Stationery Office.
Rybeck, W. (1991). ‘Pennsylvania experiments in property tax modernization’, NTA Forum.
Smart Taxes (2010a), Implementation of Site Value Tax in Ireland. Dublin: Smart Taxes.
Smart Taxes (2010b), Supplement to Site Value Tax Budget Submission. Dublin: Smart Taxes.
Tomson, A. (2000), ‘Estonia’ in R.V. Andelson (ed.), ‘Land-Value Taxation around the World’, The
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 59 (5), 327-337.
World Bank (2011), Doing Business 2011: Taiwan, China. Washington: World Bank.
