President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has reportedly given his approval to the Ministry of Finance’s proposal for a “luxury tax” under which, among other things, owners of non-self-use residential properties that change hands more than once within two years would have to pay a tax of 10 percent of the actual transaction price of the property. This would go up to 15 percent when there is less than one year between transactions.
I can’t help but feel angry about the Ma administration’s continued unwillingness to confront Taiwan’s distorted taxation system, which is the core problem that makes the real-estate market so unsound.
As far as dealing with high real-estate prices is concerned, the proposed “luxury tax” is no more than a stopgap measure. The key problem behind the unsound market and soaring real-estate prices is that the tax base is not determined according to market prices.
The tax base for land value increment tax is the rise in the price of land based on the current value of land as announced once a year by the government.
The deed tax, house tax and taxes levied on income from property transactions are all based on the assessed current prices of housing.
Land value tax is based on the announced price of land.
None of these are market prices.
The process of setting these prices tends to be divorced from reality and influenced by artificial adjustments. They are called “current prices,” but they are quite far removed from the market prices.
In addition, the fact that these price announcements are made at fixed intervals results in the strange phenomenon of short-term transactions not being subject to land value increment tax. The costs involved in real-estate speculation are therefore very low, so of course house prices keep going up.
Also, instead of taking real-estate transaction prices as the tax base, housing is subject to tax levied on income from property transactions.
It is called “income tax,” but in fact it involves a very high rate of tax based on the assessed current price of housing and the assumption that house sellers “must have” gained income from the deal.
Is that fair and reasonable?
In Taiwan, land and buildings are taxed separately, and this also leads indirectly to distortions in the tax system. After all, are land and buildings paid for separately in normal real-estate transactions?
Instead of finding out the transaction price and imposing a unified tax based on the combined price of land and buildings, the government keeps thinking up various ways of assessing the prices of land and buildings.
In so doing, it not only fails to levy tax on actual income, but also creates a considerable discrepancy between the way the tax base is determined and the reality of the market.
The government says that it plans to make the announced price closer to the market price, but why not refer directly to the market price, instead of just trying to get close to it? This strange way of doing things makes one wonder whether the government is really determined to fix the tax system’s core problems.
Is it really that hard to find out the transaction price?
The ministry’s draft plan for the luxury tax takes market prices as its tax base, implying that the government knows how to ascertain the transaction price.
That being the case, why not take the transaction price as the base for land value increment tax, too?
Or why not abolish land value increment tax altogether and just use tax levied on income from property transactions?
That ought to eliminate unfairness and distortions in the tax system. Maybe tax departments are worried that taking market prices as the tax base would amount to a tax increase, but that is just a technical question of the relation between the tax base and the tax rate.
Does the government sincerely want to reform the system?
Reforms are never easy, but right now the public is eager for the government to reform the real-estate taxation system.
If the Ma administration just tries to fob off the public with this luxury tax, it will have wasted a great opportunity for reform.
It may be that in the past insufficient information made it hard to ascertain transaction prices, but in recent years, information about real-estate deals has become more transparent.
Besides, Article 166-1 of the Civil Code gives the government a full legal basis for obtaining transaction prices.
There is nothing to stop the government from amending land registration regulations, since no legislative amendment is required. In line with the Civil Code, these regulations could demand that when the sale and transfer of real estate is registered, the sale contract must be submitted to and signed by a notary public or real-estate appraiser.
Of course the authorities would then instantly be able to ascertain the transaction price. So the government should stop limiting itself to technical questions instead of implementing real reforms.
Reforms should not be held up by electoral considerations, nor do business groups have to be consulted before they go ahead.
Reform is painful, it’s true, but if we don’t do it today we will regret it tomorrow. Two decades have passed since Wang Chien-shien quit as deputy minister of finance because he wanted the base for land value increment tax to be changed to the market price.
If the system had been reformed back then, would people be suffering from property speculation the way they are today?
Ma has a distinct advantage in that his party has a majority in the legislature and it controls the executive. Let us hope his government will have the guts to carry out real reform of the real-estate taxation system.
Yang Chung-hsien is an assistant professor in the Department of Real Estate Management at the National Pingtung Institute of Commerce.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS