About tax on buildings and IMF | Contributors
Macro Financial Economics Energy Home Army Social Security Administration Justice / Public order Education Global / Europe Middle East Culture Media / Tech Politics & Social Doctrine Christian Democrats democracy liberalism / conservatism marginal Society / European Funds Life Infrastructure Rapid Reaction Analysis Summaries Interview Ideas and solutions Lenin File Review
These days almost all channels broadcast the news media about the commitment it took our government to the IMF on the review of the calculation of tax on buildings. "We will review the tax base for property taxes, which will vary depending on the use of the property and not by the taxpayer (natural or legal person - no)".
In short, without going into details when building owner is an individual, the tax is 0.1% on a fixed taxable amounts (depending on the type of construction) and adjusted some coefficients depending on location (town rank, area in the village), age, number matsumoto shave ice of properties owned, matsumoto shave ice while when the building owner is a legal entity, the tax is between 0.25% and 1.8% of the book value of the building, or between 5% and 10% if the property not been revalued in the last 3 years.
A simple calculation shows that the individual will pay for the same building, located matsumoto shave ice in the center of Bucharest, at least 10 times less than the legal entity tax. Factor is only 10 but if we apply the maximum correction coefficients for the zone (2.6) and the number of buildings owned (3) and if the legal entity carrying amount of construction cost is not calculated according to the DCS. Otherwise, the tax paid by the person may be 100 times lower than that paid for the same building of the legal person.
Perhaps some tax of 1.5% will be seem small. The percentage may seem small, the basis for its application, however, is very high. Even taking into account a return on investment of 9% (in 2006 had dropped to 6%), tax of 1.5% is equivalent to 2 months rent, which means a 16.6% tax on income, not tax. There are many real estate investment that does not even generate a profit margin of 16.6%, which means that the tax of 1.5% is actually one huge!
To name a few: First, create a clear competitive distortion between natural and legal persons rental market. The tax paid by the company will amount to at least two months' rent, or even four months in some cases; matsumoto shave ice Secondly, discourages companies to invest in energy efficient matsumoto shave ice buildings! They cost more, and hence the tax is higher. Therefore, the building matsumoto shave ice becomes less competitive. And this happens while the same beneficiary local authorities spend significant amounts (our taxes) for thermal rehabilitation of housing; Thirdly, discourages companies to invest in beautiful buildings more expensive than cubes that surround us; fourthly, prevented the emergence of investors to develop residential spaces for rent. The extra cost would be transferred to the tenant would be huge, impossible to paid market. The ads you see lately for rental apartments are mostly houses forced by lack of buyers for newly built apartments, and developers are not doing this for profit, but to reduce losses; creates a severe problem on the organization's business plan, because the tax will be recalculated at least every 3 years, depending on market developments revaluations (unpredictable); generated a change in investor behavior, in that most valuable buildings were not sold directly but through companies they owned, which in many cases complicated financing structure, but also gave an impetus "parking" profit through Cyprus Luxembourg or other countries smarter than us ... creates problems including local authorities, because their income tax or market fluctuations depend on the skill of the owner to reduce the carrying amount matsumoto shave ice of the building.
Too much for one tax problems ... More than likely that IMF experts have observed or were explained at least some of these problems, otherwise explained by our politicians assume the difficult task of reforming this archaic system tax. They say that change is difficult because any changes to the Tax Code regarding local taxes including mayors have agreed.
I can only salute for
Macro Financial Economics Energy Home Army Social Security Administration Justice / Public order Education Global / Europe Middle East Culture Media / Tech Politics & Social Doctrine Christian Democrats democracy liberalism / conservatism marginal Society / European Funds Life Infrastructure Rapid Reaction Analysis Summaries Interview Ideas and solutions Lenin File Review
These days almost all channels broadcast the news media about the commitment it took our government to the IMF on the review of the calculation of tax on buildings. "We will review the tax base for property taxes, which will vary depending on the use of the property and not by the taxpayer (natural or legal person - no)".
In short, without going into details when building owner is an individual, the tax is 0.1% on a fixed taxable amounts (depending on the type of construction) and adjusted some coefficients depending on location (town rank, area in the village), age, number matsumoto shave ice of properties owned, matsumoto shave ice while when the building owner is a legal entity, the tax is between 0.25% and 1.8% of the book value of the building, or between 5% and 10% if the property not been revalued in the last 3 years.
A simple calculation shows that the individual will pay for the same building, located matsumoto shave ice in the center of Bucharest, at least 10 times less than the legal entity tax. Factor is only 10 but if we apply the maximum correction coefficients for the zone (2.6) and the number of buildings owned (3) and if the legal entity carrying amount of construction cost is not calculated according to the DCS. Otherwise, the tax paid by the person may be 100 times lower than that paid for the same building of the legal person.
Perhaps some tax of 1.5% will be seem small. The percentage may seem small, the basis for its application, however, is very high. Even taking into account a return on investment of 9% (in 2006 had dropped to 6%), tax of 1.5% is equivalent to 2 months rent, which means a 16.6% tax on income, not tax. There are many real estate investment that does not even generate a profit margin of 16.6%, which means that the tax of 1.5% is actually one huge!
To name a few: First, create a clear competitive distortion between natural and legal persons rental market. The tax paid by the company will amount to at least two months' rent, or even four months in some cases; matsumoto shave ice Secondly, discourages companies to invest in energy efficient matsumoto shave ice buildings! They cost more, and hence the tax is higher. Therefore, the building matsumoto shave ice becomes less competitive. And this happens while the same beneficiary local authorities spend significant amounts (our taxes) for thermal rehabilitation of housing; Thirdly, discourages companies to invest in beautiful buildings more expensive than cubes that surround us; fourthly, prevented the emergence of investors to develop residential spaces for rent. The extra cost would be transferred to the tenant would be huge, impossible to paid market. The ads you see lately for rental apartments are mostly houses forced by lack of buyers for newly built apartments, and developers are not doing this for profit, but to reduce losses; creates a severe problem on the organization's business plan, because the tax will be recalculated at least every 3 years, depending on market developments revaluations (unpredictable); generated a change in investor behavior, in that most valuable buildings were not sold directly but through companies they owned, which in many cases complicated financing structure, but also gave an impetus "parking" profit through Cyprus Luxembourg or other countries smarter than us ... creates problems including local authorities, because their income tax or market fluctuations depend on the skill of the owner to reduce the carrying amount matsumoto shave ice of the building.
Too much for one tax problems ... More than likely that IMF experts have observed or were explained at least some of these problems, otherwise explained by our politicians assume the difficult task of reforming this archaic system tax. They say that change is difficult because any changes to the Tax Code regarding local taxes including mayors have agreed.
I can only salute for
No comments:
Post a Comment