Suchergebnisse

House Resolution 34, which was approved by the House of Delegates during the 1977 session of the Virginia General Assembly, observed that Virginia's inheritance and gift tax laws have remained essentially unchanged for more than 50 years and commissioned a study of those laws "in light of recent developments."' The proponents of House Resolution 34 no doubt had the 1976 amendments to the federal estate and gift tax laws fresh on their minds. But in addition to the federal changes, several of the states have altered their approach to transfer taxation in recent years. These changes expand the options available to Virginia and allow Virginia to draw on the experience of her sister states in assessing those options.

This paper provides background information that the public can use to assess the merits and consequences of introducing a land transfer tax in Alberta. Land transfer taxes are levied when real property is transferred from one owner to another. Five provincial governments levy land transfer taxes and in Ontario and British Columbia, they raise substantial amounts of revenue for the provincial governments. What is also clear is that land transfer taxes are very volatile sources of tax revenue that increase rapidly during housing market booms, but then decline sharply when housing markets crash. The econometric evidence on the impact of land transfer taxes on housing prices and sales volumes, based on the experiences in different countries, is somewhat mixed, but most studies indicate that a substantial share of the burden is borne by current homeowners through reductions in housing sales prices and many studies find that land transfer taxes significantly reduce the volume of residential real estate transactions. The authors of many of the studies that we review conclude that residential property tax is a better source tax revenue than a land transfer tax because it causes few distortions in the housing market. We estimate that a one per cent land transfer tax in Alberta would have yielded between $480 and $500 million in 2017. The value land transfers in Alberta can vary substantially from year to year, making a land transfer tax in Alberta would be a highly volatile source of tax revenue. A land transfer tax would likely exacerbate the volatility of total provincial revenues, making budgeting and fiscal decisions even more difficult than currently. A one percent land transfer tax on an average land transfer in 2015 would represent six to seven percent of median household income in Edmonton and Calgary. This would be significantly higher than the four to five percent land transfer tax burden on the residents of other Alberta cities because of the higher housing prices in Alberta's two largest cities. We conclude that a land transfer tax is an inferior source of tax revenue and we are not in favour of the introduction of a land transfer tax in Alberta.

Municipal revenues have been hit hard by the COVID-19-driven economic slowdown, forcing governments to identify new sources of funding or enact steep service cuts. Cuts of approximately $1 billion for Los Angeles County and up to $600 million for the city of Los Angeles are anticipated, with further reductions possible as the economic fallout comes into sharper focus. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, California local governments have been restricted in their options for raising revenue. This has led to an overreliance on regressive sales taxes and an inequitable distribution of property tax burden, among other challenges. Reforms to the real estate transfer tax, which is assessed when properties are sold or otherwise change ownership, are an effective and equitable solution to immediate budget needs, while also supporting important long-term priorities including affordable housing and tenant assistance.