Land value taxation (i.e. property tax applied only to the unimproved value of land) has a long history in the United States dating back from Physiocrat influence on Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. It is most famously associated with Henry George and his book Progress and Poverty (1879), which argued that because the supply of land is fixed and its location value is created by communities and public works, the economic rent of land is the most logical source of public revenue.[1] and which had considerable impact on turn-of-the-century reform movements in America and elsewhere.[2] Every single state in the United States has some form of property tax on real estate and hence, in part, a tax on land value. However, Pennsylvania in particular has seen local attempts to rely more heavily on the taxation of land value.
Henry George (September 2, 1839 – October 29, 1897) was perhaps the most famous advocate of land rents. As an Americanpolitical economist, he advocated for a "single tax" on land that would eliminate the need for all other taxes. In 1879 he authored Progress and Poverty, which significantly influenced land taxation in the United States.
Legality
There are two potential legal obstacles unique to land value taxation in the United States: uniformity clauses and Dillon's Rule. At the federal level, land value taxation is legal so long as it is apportioned among the states.[6][7]
Uniformity clauses
The United States legal system includes "uniformity clauses" found in individual State Constitutions as well as the federal Constitution. Broadly speaking, these clauses require taxation to be applied evenly or uniformly within a jurisdiction. However, the exact wording and meaning of these clauses differs from constitution to constitution. Although the federal Uniformity Clause has never been an issue, the wording and interpretation of many state constitutions has created issues peculiar to each state. For example in 1898, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the highest state appellate court) ruled that the use of land value taxation in Hyattsville was unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, an amendment to the Maryland Declaration of Rights specifically allowed for land value taxation where authorized by the State Legislature.[8][9] However, the uniformity clause in Pennsylvania has been broadly construed, and land value taxation has been used since 1913.[10]
Each state will have its own legal stance or lack of any stance on LVT; some uniformity clauses explicitly allow some types of classifications of property, some have no uniformity clause, and some do not specifically discuss land qua land at all. Except for the pre-1900 Maryland case of Hyattsville (later overturned by state constitutional amendment and statutory provisions), no state courts have actually struck down an attempt to implement land value taxation on the basis of a state uniformity clause. Nor have any courts even squarely ruled that land and improvements are actually "classes" of property such that uniformity clauses are applicable. Consequently, as a general rule, as long as each type of property (land, improvements, personal) is taxed uniformly there is no constitutional obstacle.
Even in rather strict uniformity clause states, it is unclear whether the uniformity clause actually prohibits separate land value taxation. Some states have other constitutional provisions - for example in New Jersey, which gives localities maximum home rule authority,[11] and have not adopted Dillon's Rule. While the uniformity clauses might be interpreted to prohibit state-wide action, local action may be legitimate.[12]
Local authorization: Dillon's Rule v. Cooley Doctrine
Although uniformity clauses do not seem to be a major obstacle in most jurisdictions to land value taxation, control of local authority by the state legislature remains a real obstacle, requiring the need for local enabling authority or the abrogation of Dillon's Rule. The theory of state preeminence over local governments was expressed as Dillon's Rule in an 1868 case, where it was stated that "[m]unicipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control."[13]
As opposed to Dillon's Rule, the Cooley Doctrine expressed the theory of an inherent right to local self determination. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court Judge Thomas Cooley in 1871 stated: "[L]ocal government is a matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away."[14] In Maryland, for example, municipal corporations have the right to implement land value taxation, but the counties, including Baltimore City which is treated as a county in Maryland for certain purposes, do not.[9] However, Dillon's Rule has been abandoned in some states, whether in whole by state constitution or state legislation or piecemeal by home rule legislation passed by the State Legislature. For example, the Virginia Legislature has granted land value tax authority to Fairfax (2002), Roanoke (2003), Poquoson (2007), and Richmond (2020).
Usage
Every single state in the United States has some form of property tax on real estate and hence, in part, a tax on land value. There are several cities that use LVT to varying degrees, but LVT in its purest form is not used on state or national levels. Land value taxation was tried in the South during Reconstruction as a way to promote land reform. There have also been several attempts throughout history to introduce land value taxation on a national level. In Hylton v. United States, the Supreme Court directly acknowledged that a Land Tax was constitutional, so long as it was apportioned equally among the states. Two of the associate justices explained in their summaries, stating:
[T]he Constitution declares, ... both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax. ... I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation tax and a tax on land.[7]
I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on land.[7]
There have also been attempts since then to introduce land value tax legislation, such as the Federal Property Tax Act of 1798,[15] and HR 6026, a bill introduced to the United States House of Representatives on February 20, 1935 by Theodore L. Moritz of Pennsylvania. HR 6026 would have imposed a national 1% tax on the value of land in excess of $3,000.
Single tax
The first city in the United States to enact land value taxation was Hyattsville, Maryland in 1898, through the efforts of Judge Jackson H. Ralston. The Maryland Courts subsequently found it to be barred by the Maryland Constitution. Judge Ralston and his supporters commenced a campaign to amend the state Constitution which culminated in the Art. 15 of the Declaration of Rights (which remains today part of the Maryland State Constitution). In addition, he helped see that enabling legislation for towns be passed in 1916, which also remains in effect today.[9][16] The towns of Fairhope, Alabama and Arden, Delaware were later founded as model Georgist communities or "single tax colonies".
In 2011, Altoona, Pennsylvania fully shifted its property tax so that it fell only on land[17] but reverted to a tax on land and improvements in 2016. The mayor cited two major reasons for the repeal: the limited impact of the change due to county and school district property taxes, and the unfamiliarity businesses and residents had with the tax scheme.[18]
Nearly 20 Pennsylvania cities employ a two-rate or split-rate property tax: taxing the value of land at a higher rate and the value of the buildings and improvements at a lower one. This can be seen as a compromise between pure LVT and an ordinary property tax falling on real estate (land value plus improvement value).[19] Alternatively, two-rate taxation may be seen as a form that allows gradual transformation of the traditional real estate property tax into a pure land value tax.
Nearly two dozen local Pennsylvania jurisdictions (such as Harrisburg)[20] use two-rate property taxation in which the tax on land value is higher and the tax on improvement value is lower. Pittsburgh used the two-rate system from 1913 to 2001[21] when a countywide property reassessment led to a drastic increase in assessed land values during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the traditional single-rate property tax. The tax on land in Pittsburgh was about 5.77 times the tax on improvements.
Notwithstanding the change in 2001, the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership Business Improvement District employed a pure land value taxation as a surcharge on the regular property tax from 1997 to 2016.[22] In 2000, Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman wrote[23] that when comparing Pennsylvania cities using a higher tax rate on land value and a lower rate on improvements with similar sized Pennsylvania cities using the same rate on land and improvements, the higher land value taxation leads to increased construction within the jurisdiction.[24][25]
Below are rates used in local Pennsylvania jurisdictions as of 2013:[26]
Jurisdiction
Land Tax Rate (mills)
Building Tax Rate (mills)
Tax Ratio
Aggregate Property Tax Rate (mills)
Year Established
Aliquippa School District
188.000
29.500
6.3729
60.530
1993
Aliquippa City
81.000
11.400
7.1053
24.900
1988
Allentown City
50.380
10.720
4.6996
17.520
1997
Altoona City
369.015
0
∞
47.84
2002
Clairton City
33.000
3.5
9.5
7.500
1989
Clairton School District
75.000
3.100
24.1935
22.000
2006
DuBois City
82.000
2.000
44
18.370
1991
Duquesne City
18.50
11.5
1.61
10.3
1985
Ebensburg Borough
25.00
7.500
3.33
10.500
2000
Harrisburg City
30.97
5.16
6.0
9.630
1975
Lock Haven City
22.16
4.55
4.9
7.58
1991
McKeesport City
16.500
4.260
3.8732
7.000
1980
New Castle City
26.497
7.792
3.40
11.18
1982
Pittsburgh Business District
4.374
0
∞
N/A
1997
Scranton City
92.2636
20.065
4.6
28.500
1913
Titusville City
53.510
13.35
4.0082
18.333
1990
Washington City
100.630
3.500
28.7514
21.620
1985
Connecticut
Connecticut passed an enabling act in 2009.[27][28]
Detroit
In 2023, Mayor Mike Duggan proposed a plan to tax land and buildings at different rates within the City of Detroit. The proposal, if passed, would raise tax rates on land by 300%, while lowering tax rates on buildings by 30%. [29] The mayor bemoaned that under the status quo, “blight is rewarded, building is punished,” as speculators -- "absentee landlords and faceless LLCs" hiding behind shell corporations -- buy tens of thousands of Detroit properties, waiting for "paydays" when property values rise thanks to the efforts of others’ building and renovating their properties. He argues that split-rate taxation would tax "empty parcels at higher rates" forcing their owners "to develop them into something useful." Those homeowners living in the city with a stake in renovationand renewal "will be rewarded with lower bills". “The phrase we use is ‘Land should eat’”.[30]
Notes
↑ George, Henry (1879). Progress and Poverty. The often cited passage is titled "The unbound Savannah."
↑ Barker, Charles Albro Henry George. Oxford University Press 1955 and Greenwood Press 1974. ISBN0-8371-7775-8
↑ See J. Anthony Coughlan, Land Value Taxation and Constitutional Uniformity, 7 GEO. MASON L. REV. 261 (1999). This article provides an in-depth law & economics analysis of the Pennsylvania uniformity clause jurisprudence in determining that land value taxes in Pennsylvania would likely survive constitutional challenge. The article concludes with reflections on how such analysis might be extrapolated to other states.
↑ The provisions of this Constitution and of any law concerning municipal corporations formed for local government, or concerning counties, shall be liberally construed in their favor. The powers of counties and such municipal corporations shall include not only those granted in express terms but also those of necessary or fair implication, or incident to the powers expressly conferred, or essential thereto, and not inconsistent with or prohibited by this Constitution or by law.Constitution of the State of New JerseyArchived 2009-06-30 at the Wayback Machine , Article IV, Section VII (11).
↑ "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis of the Effect of Two-Rate Property Taxes on Construction", Journal of Urban Economics, 2000, vol. 47, issue 2, p. 216-247
↑ Oates, W. & Schwab, R. "The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience." National Tax Journal L (March) 1-21. (1997)
↑ Cord, S. "Taxing Land More Than Buildings: The Record In Pennsylvania." In C. Lowell Harriss, ed. 1983. The Property Tax and Local Finance. New York: The Academy of Political Science 172-179.
The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2020, taxes collected by federal, state, and local governments amounted to 25.5% of GDP, below the OECD average of 33.5% of GDP.
The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population. It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.
A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements upon it. It is also known as a location value tax, a point valuation tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating.
The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for a headnote stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations.
This aims to be a complete list of the articles on real estate.
A sales tax is a tax paid to a governing body for the sales of certain goods and services. Usually laws allow the seller to collect funds for the tax from the consumer at the point of purchase.
An ad valorem tax is a tax whose amount is based on the value of a transaction or of a property. It is typically imposed at the time of a transaction, as in the case of a sales tax or value-added tax (VAT). An ad valorem tax may also be imposed annually, as in the case of a real or personal property tax, or in connection with another significant event. In some countries, a stamp duty is imposed as an ad valorem tax.
Although the actual definitions vary between jurisdictions, in general, a direct tax or income tax is a tax imposed upon a person or property as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction, which is described as an indirect tax. There is a distinction between direct and indirect tax depending on whether the tax payer is the actual taxpayer or if the amount of tax is supported by a third party, usually a client. The term may be used in economic and political analyses, but does not itself have any legal implications. However, in the United States, the term has special constitutional significance because of a provision in the U.S. Constitution that any direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. In the European Union direct taxation remains the sole responsibility of member states.
The enumerated powers of the United States Congress are the powers granted to the federal government of the United States by the United States Constitution. Most of these powers are listed in Article I, Section 8.
The constitutional basis of taxation in Australia is predominantly found in sections 51(ii), 90, 53, 55, and 96, of the Constitution of Australia. Their interpretation by the High Court of Australia has been integral to the functioning and evolution of federalism in Australia.
The Taxing and Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a taxpayer challenged the validity of a federal income tax on corporations. The privilege of incorporation is a state function, and the challengers argued that only the states should tax corporations. The Court ruled that the privilege of operating in corporate form is valuable and justifies imposition of a federal income tax:
Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. 283 (1849), were two similar cases, argued together before the United States Supreme Court, which decided 5–4 that states do not have the right to impose a tax that is determined by the number of passengers of a designated category on board a ship and/or disembarking into the State. The cases are sometimes called the Passenger Case or Passenger Cases.
Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.
Empress Casino Joliet Corporation v. Giannoulias, 231 Ill.2d 62, 896 N.E.2d 277 (2008), is a case from Supreme Court of Illinois in which four casinos challenged a tax imposed by Public Act 94-804. The Act was challenged on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional taking. The Court held categorically that a tax could never be a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Taxation of income in the United States has been practised since colonial times. Some southern states imposed their own taxes on income from property, both before and after Independence. The Constitution empowered the federal government to raise taxes at a uniform rate throughout the nation, and required that "direct taxes" be imposed only in proportion to the Census population of each state. Federal income tax was first introduced under the Revenue Act of 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. It was renewed in later years and reformed in 1894 in the form of the Wilson-Gorman tariff.
Most local governments in the United States impose a property tax, also known as a millage rate, as a principal source of revenue. This tax may be imposed on real estate or personal property. The tax is nearly always computed as the fair market value of the property, multiplied by an assessment ratio, multiplied by a tax rate, and is generally an obligation of the owner of the property. Values are determined by local officials, and may be disputed by property owners. For the taxing authority, one advantage of the property tax over the sales tax or income tax is that the revenue always equals the tax levy, unlike the other types of taxes. The property tax typically produces the required revenue for municipalities' tax levies. One disadvantage to the taxpayer is that the tax liability is fixed, while the taxpayer's income is not.
Article I, § 10, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Import-Export Clause, prevents the states, without the consent of Congress, from imposing tariffs on imports and exports above what is necessary for their inspection laws and secures for the federal government the revenues from all tariffs on imports and exports. Several nineteenth century Supreme Court cases applied this clause to duties and imposts on interstate imports and exports. In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states, although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.
Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), was a significant United States Supreme Court case which interpreted the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution to prohibit discriminatory taxation by states against imported items after importation, rather than only at the time of importation. The state of Maryland passed a law requiring importers of foreign goods to obtain a license for selling their products. Brown was charged under this law and appealed. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Import-Export Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, ruling that Maryland's statute violated the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses and the federal law was supreme. He alleged that the power of a state to tax goods did not apply if they remained in their "original package". A license tax on the importer was essentially the same as a tax on an import itself. Despite arguing the case for Maryland, future chief justice Roger Taney admitted that the case was correctly decided.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
