Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

Michigan's conditional land transfer agreement provides a framework for negotiation but does not always help local governments reconcile conflict. This article compares two cases of land transfer negotiations. Disagreements on land-use values thwart conditional land transfer unless officials explicitly discuss and resolve land-use disagreements during negotiation. Focusing on agreement negotiation rather than adoption, the study provides an important cautionary note on the scope of case selection necessary for the study of cooperative agreements. The findings direct researchers to study more cases of negotiation, not just interlocal agreement adoption. For Michigan officials, the study points to the importance of including broader discussion of land use in conditional land transfer negotiations. Adapted from the source document.

This report discusses the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, which represents an attempt to clear up the conflicting land claims of three distinct parties in Alaska – the State, Alaska Native Corporations, and Native allottees – in time for the fiftieth anniversary of Alaska's statehood in 2009.

It-s difficult for China-s current land transfer institutions limited to county-wide to solve the contradiction between urban-rural development and construction land shortage. On the basis of analyzing China-s construction land transfer system, and evaluation toward Transfer of development rights (TDR) practices in Anhui and Chongqing, the passage proposes: (1) we should establish a multi-level land indicators trade market under the guidance of regional spatial objectives, and allow land transfer paid across cities and counties within a specific area following the regulation of both government and market; (2) it would be better to combine organically the policy ntentions of land plan, regional plan, urban plan and economic plan, and link them with land indicators transfer to promote a wider range of urban-rural balance and regional coordination.

The transfer of European farms to Africans began in Kenya a few years before independence in 1963. The main principles of the programmes for land transfer and settlement – the two elements cannot be separated – were laid down at that time and continued thereafter. This article describes their history and main features, sets out the principles on which they were based, and explains the financial arrangements. It then analyses the experience of land transfer and settlement, and suggests lessons that may be drawin form this knowledge.