Back to Tax Revision Commission main page — Back to list of research papers
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
Preliminary Report on Tangible Personal Property Taxation in the District of Columbia John H. Bowman, Ph.D. Prepared for the District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission, December 1997 Table of Contents
A fundamental question concerning personal property taxation is whether it should remain a part of the District's tax system. Several states already have exempted personal property from taxation. A Brookings Institution study published earlier this year recommends elimination of the District's tax [O'Cleireacain 1997, 11 and 15]. The tax has been said to have adverse economic development effects [Mark, McGuire, and Papke 1997], and to pose problems of enforcement. Recent Trends in Taxation of Personal Property Tangible personal property became part of the base of the American general property tax during the mid-nineteenth century. All forms of property - tangible and intangible personal, as well as real - were brought under a common tax structure, on the presumption that different forms of property ownership were equally representative of ability to pay taxes. Soon after the broad, uniform, ad valorem general property tax was in place in the mid-1800s; however, it started to unravel. Today, much personal property lies outside the tax base, classification systems often impose different effective tax rates on different uses of property, and whether or not different classes are identified within each of these property types, the rates imposed on personal property often are different from the those on real property. Many items of personal property have come to be excluded from the property tax base for various reasons, including basic policy concerns and more practical ones. Most intangible property, for example, now is outside the property tax base [Bowman, Hoffer, and Pratt 1990]. In part, this widespread exclusion reflects the difficulty of locating many intangibles, but another consideration has been the fact that intangibles often represent paper claims to real and tangible personal properties that are in the tax base, so that taxation of the intangibles, too, constitutes double taxation of some properties. Administrative and policy considerations also have combined to remove inventories from the property tax base in many states. From a policy perspective, if the property tax is viewed as a tax on ability to pay, the taxation of inventories is suspect, because inventories tend to rise when business unexpectedly declines and the firm is left with more in inventory than it desires, and when business picks up, inventories tend to be drawn down. From a practical standpoint, many firms are able to manipulate inventory levels to minimize tax liability, although often at added costs - costs that constitute a wasteful activity induced by the tax, in violation of tax neutrality. A recent study found that personal property declined from about one-fifth of the local property tax base to about one-tenth over the 30-year period 1956-1986. The same study found that 10 states no longer taxed tangible personal property by 1986, up from four in 1961(1) [Mikesell 1995, 162-64]. States still taxing tangible personal property differ in terms of the categories of such property that are taxed (table TP1), and reasons for exclusion also differ by type of property [Mikesell 1995, 164-67]. Most often excluded is household personal property, removed from the tax base largely for administrative reasons. Based on data for 1991 - the most recent interstate comparison - 34 states exempt such property, and in nine more it is taxed only when used in generating income; five states provide partial exemptions, and in only one is household personal property listed as fully taxable. Because they are more readily located and valued, motor vehicles, boats, and similar items of tangible personal property used by individuals for non-business purposes often are taxed. As shown in table TP1, although 32 states exempt motor vehicles - only two less than for household property - 18 tax, although at local option in two and with partial exemption in three. In one other state, there is a special tax in lieu of the general property tax. Business inventories, for reasons noted above, are exempt in 33 states; in the other 18, they are taxed - at local option in three and with partial exemption in another three. Depreciable fixed assets of business - "other commercial & industrial" in table TP1 - are fully taxable in 26 states (two at local option), taxable with partial exemption in 16, and wholly exempt in nine.(2) At the start of the 1956-1986 period, the District was close to the U.S. average - personal property was 16.5 percent of the District's property tax base in 1956, compared with an average of 17.3 percent - although a bit below; but thirty years later, personal property was only about one-half as significant in the District's property tax as for the national average situation (table TP2). If just the taxing states are considered, personal property tax is, of course, more significant than for the average of all states; moreover, the decline in significance has been less pronounced. For this group of states, which includes the District, the personal property tax share of the base declined from 21.7 percent in 1956 to 14.1 percent in 1986 - for the District, from 16.5 percent to 5.5 percent. Thus, compared to other taxing states, the personal property has been a less important tax base, and its relative decline has been greater in the District. Personal Property Taxation in the District The District's personal property tax is similar to that found in many states, in that it applies only to property used in business and, of business personal property items, it excludes inventories. The tax on inventories was phased out over a three-year period completed in fiscal 1975. Although that was the last significant change in the base of this tax, there have been three rate increases since - from 2.40 percent to 2.82 percent in fiscal 1977, to 3.10 in fiscal 1980, and to the current rate of 3.40 percent in fiscal 1992 [District of Columbia undated, 52; and District Code, 47-1522]. Tax Base More specifically, the District imposes a tangible personal property tax on railroad rolling stock [District Code, 47-1512] and other business personal property other than inventories [District Code, 47-1522]. The tax applies to items that a taxpayer owns, leases, or rents. In the case of rolling stock, distinction is made between that which is "primarily located in the District of Columbia" and that which is "not primarily located in the District of Columbia." The value of the former category is fully taxable in the District, while the portion of the latter that is taxable in the District is calculated using the ratio of miles traveled within the District to total miles traveled in the preceding year. Just as rolling stock not permanently in the District is subject to the tax, so is other property in the District on a temporary basis, such as construction equipment. Moreover, the law provides that "real property improvements that do not become an integral part of the realty shall be subject to the personal property tax" [District Code, 47-1522(d)]. Other business personal property includes all manner of things, as can be seen best by reference to the tax return forms [District of Columbia 1997b]. Included are such things as air conditioning equipment; amusement arcade machines; brain scanners, CAT scanners, MRI scanners, and dialysis equipment; carpets and rugs; cement, gravel, and sand bins; conveyors; emergency power generators; fabricated metal products machinery and equipment; furniture and fixtures, in various categories of business; libraries; linens; mail chutes; microfilms, movie films, and video movie tapes; music boxes; outdoor Christmas decorations; pianos and organs; portable toilets; safes; signs; television, stereo, radio, and recorder equipment; trailers; vending machines; watercraft, docks, slips, wharves, piers, and floating equipment (boats, ships, barges); wax museum figures; wood pallets; and X-ray and diagnostic equipment. The list is much longer, but these few examples may give a reasonable feel for the sorts of things taxed. Unlike the real property tax, the base of the tangible personal property tax is "current value," which is depreciated "full and true value." More fully, "the original cost of the tangible personal property in an arms-length transaction, . . . less . . . straight line depreciation . . . [but] . . . items with a useful life of 1 year or less shall be reported at cost. . . . In no event shall the current value reported be less than 25% of the original cost or exchange value of the tangible personal property" [District Code, 47-1523]. The personal property tax return [District of Columbia 1997b] lists six schedules of property for which depreciation rates range anywhere from zero to 6.67 percent. No depreciation is allowed for items in category F, which includes such things as "cleaning, office and other supplies"; chemicals; linens in reserve; and antiques, oriental rugs, certain art objects, and other items deemed to be appreciating in value. (Inclusion of supplies is an exception to the rule that inventories are not subject to tax.) Other rates of depreciation are
Some of the distinctions seem relatively fine. For example, 10 percent annual depreciation applies to "X-ray and diagnostic equipment" while various sorts of scanners and dialysis equipment are depreciated twice as fast, at 20 percent per year. Similarly, telephone answering equipment, including beepers, is to be depreciated at 20 percent while intercom systems receive 10 percent depreciation. As a final example, asphalt, cement, and slurry plants and equipment (my emphasis) are depreciated at 10 percent, while cement, gravel, and sand bins - which might be construed to be part of the equipment of the former category - are depreciated more slowly, at 6.67 percent annually. The point is simply that administrative judgments have to be made, and there might be some disagreement as to where the lines should be drawn. Revenue Yield Personal property taxation produced $65.2 million for the District in fiscal 1996, making it the third-highest annual total in the 10-year period from 1987 through 1996 (table T2). That some earlier years produced higher revenue totals suggests that growth has been uneven. In fact, the percentage change from one year to the next has ranged from a 6.9 percent decline in 1994 to growth of 11.7 percent in 1991, making this a rather unstable revenue source. The compound annual average growth rate for that interval was a bit over 1.8 percent. Table TP3 also shows the calculated tangible personal property tax base, gotten by dividing the tax rate into the revenue yield. Because there was only one rate change in the interval shown, the percentage changes in the base are estimated to have been the same as those in revenues except for that one year. The rather slow average growth in personal property tax revenues resulted in a decline in its standing, relative to various components of District general fund revenues (table TP4). Index values were calculated to compare this revenue source to the real property tax, all general fund taxes, all own-source general fund revenues, and all general fund revenues over the 1987-1996 period. These express personal property revenue as a percentage of each of these other revenue measures. The index numbers show that tangible personal property was a relatively small and source of revenue throughout the period and, moreover, that its relative importance was never higher in the following nine years than it was in 1987. Personal property tax revenue was equal to 11.5 percent of real property tax revenue, for example, in 1987. It amounted to no more than 3.0 percent of any of the other revenue measures in that year. Ten years later, personal property tax had declined approximately 10 percent relative to the first three revenue measures, but over 18 percent relative to total general fund revenues. Thus, personal property taxation represents a small and increasingly less significant source of revenue. Administration Values of taxable personal property are obtained from returns filed by taxpayers. Since 1977, returns have been due by July 31, with the tax due to be remitted with the return [District of Columbia undated, 52]. The 1998 returns were due by July 31, 1997; if an extension was sought, the tax still was due by July 31 [District of Columbia 1997b]. The depreciated original cost value ("current value") figures reported on the return, using depreciation guidelines discussed above, provide the basis for the tax. Thus, while the real property tax is taxpayer-passive, the personal property tax is taxpayer-active. In the former, the District is responsible for determining the tax base, calculating the tax due, and sending a bill to the taxpayer. In the latter, the taxpayer determines the tax base using a form provided by the District - but relying heavily on the records of the taxpayer - and also calculates the tax due, to be remitted with the return. Although often lumped with real property taxation as part of "the" property tax, there are significant differences. "Neither assessment process nor appraisal standard for personal property matches those used for real property. . . . The accounting records of business drive the typical personal property assessment through a mechanistic application of a narrow cost approach" [Mikesell 1995, 167]. Moreover, current market-value information on tangible personal property generally is not available, as active markets in used machinery and equipment often do not exist, and the sales that do occur often are liquidation sales, which would not meet the standard usually imposed for valuing real property - i.e., an arm's-length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither party being under pressure to make the transaction [Eckert 1990, 127]. Thus, direct comparisons between real and personal property are difficult, and perhaps not appropriate. To a considerable extent, the fate of the personal property tax need not be linked to the real property tax. In the District, tangible personal property is taxed at a higher rate - 3.4 percent - than any real property class other than class 5, vacant property. It is probable that the effective rate (tax as a percentage of market value) is lower for much of the tangible personal property base, but equally important, there are no data to permit ready comparison. Taxing personal property on its depreciated original cost often will result in a relatively low value figure. But there no doubt are many instances in which the reverse is true, for several reasons. First, straight-line depreciation may depreciate original cost too slowly early in the life of an asset, relative to what the property could be sold for once it has been put into use. Also, the depreciation period may be too long - i.e., the annual rate of depreciation may be too low. Another factor that may make depreciation too slow is the floor that establishes 25 percent of initial cost as the minimum taxable value. An important example of a class of personal property that may be depreciated too slowly is computers, which District rules depreciate at 20 percent per year, despite the rapid pace of technological advancement and declining prices in this industry. Finally, a given type of property may be assigned to an inappropriate depreciation category. Some instances were noted above in which seemingly similar types of personal property are to be depreciated at significantly different rates. While potential inequities of the sort noted are important, another set of considerations has to do with revenue productivity. The personal property tax is not a major source of revenue for the District, and its relative significance has been declining. As noted, in fiscal 1996 this tax accounted for only 1.5 percent of all general fund revenues, and only 2.6 percent of all taxes. But this is not the same as saying that the tax would not be missed if repealed. In fiscal 1995, for example, all major sources of revenue for the District's general fund declined, and in fiscal 1996 general fund revenues increased by only 1.5 percent (table TP5). Also in fiscal 1996, the personal property tax was equal to 1.5 percent of general fund revenue (table TP4). Thus, fiscal 1996 growth would have been wiped out had the personal property tax been repealed effective that year, and in fiscal 1995, its repeal would have resulted in a still larger decline than was experienced. Although tangible personal property taxation accounted for over 20 percent of the local property tax base in 11 states in 1986, such property was outside the tax base in another 11 [Mikesell 1995, 163-64]. Over the 1956-1986 period, its share of the local property tax base declined in both Maryland and Virginia, as well as in the District. By 1986, the share was 9.2 percent in Virginia, 0.8 percent in Maryland, and 5.5 percent in the District (table TP2). Although the District is about midway between its two neighboring states, the Virginia figure overstates the importance of personal property taxation on business property. The largest category of personal property in Virginia consists of motor vehicles, boats, and the like, principally those used for non-business purposes. These account for over 80 percent of locally taxed personal property values, and over half of the sum of such values plus the property of public service corporations, while business machinery and tools and merchants' capital account for the remainder of local personal property values and roughly 10 percent of the total, including public service corporation property [Virginia Department of Taxation 1995, 61]. Moreover, merchants' capital, which is roughly 1.5 percent of the local personal property tax base statewide (and about one percent of the total, including public service corporations), is taxed at local option. Much of the personal property tax in Virginia is not imposed on the sorts of property taxed by the District. As shown in table TP6, none of the Virginia jurisdictions in the Washington metro area levies the tax on inventories. In fact, among the three Maryland and seven Virginia localities to which the District compares itself [District of Columbia 1996a] - Charles, Montgomery, and Prince George's counties in Maryland and, in Virginia, the independent cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church plus the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William - there is no inventory tax at the county or independent city level, although some towns in two of the three Maryland counties impose the tax (table TP6). Business machinery and equipment, taxed by the District at 3.4 percent, also is taxed only at the sub-county level in the three Maryland counties. All seven of the Virginia jurisdictions tax machinery and equipment at nominal rates ranging from 2.0 percent to 4.86 percent. All the units in the metropolitan area start from original cost, from which depreciation is subtracted in arriving at taxable value. As noted earlier, the District uses straight-line depreciation over various asset-life periods, but provides that 25 percent of original cost is the minimum taxable value. Maryland law specifies depreciation at 10 percent per year in most instances, and also makes 25 percent of original cost the floor for taxable value.(3) Virginia allows localities to select different valuation approaches, but all seven in table TP6 start from original cost [Knapp 1993, 107-130]. Virginia depreciation schedules also differ by locality. In five of the seven, first-year depreciation is 20 percent, while in one it is 15 percent, and in the other, 50 percent; minimum taxable values of 20 percent (in four of the localities) or 10 percent (in three localities) are reached in anywhere from five to nine years. Finally, only the Virginia localities tax motor vehicles. Their nominal tax rates range from 3.29 percent to 4.86 percent; allowing for the different values used (e.g., loan, trade-in, retail), effective tax rates range from 2.83 percent to 4.18 percent. As already noted, such vehicles comprise the bulk of the personal property tax base in Virginia - over 80 percent, when public service corporation property is omitted, as it is in the table TP6 comparison. In summary, the District's personal property tax share of the property tax base - although a smaller percentage than in the average state where such property is taxed - is high relative to those in the two neighboring states, when considering business property. The District's 5.5 percent share compares with 0.8 percent in Maryland, and approximately two percent in Virginia (under one-fifth of the 9.2 percent figure in table TP2). Recommendation 1. The District should move to eliminate the tax on tangible personal property within the next few years. The long-term trend clearly is toward narrowing the base of the tangible personal property tax (table TP2). Moreover, while the District taxes the component of tangible personal property most commonly taxed - business depreciable assets - at least nine states wholly exempt such property, and another 16 provide partial exemption, and two more leave it to local option (table TP1). Among those wholly exempting are several states close to the District, including Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania [Mikesell 1995, 166-67]. Another study done for the District's Tax Revision Commission has identified the tangible personal property tax as a significant negative factor in the District's economy [Mark, McGuire, and Papke 1997]. All the local units in the metropolitan area shown in table TP6 tax non-manufacturing machinery and equipment, but exclude manufacturing machinery and equipment and all inventories. From this standpoint, the District's tax is not out of line. The District's 3.4 percent rate, however, is higher than the rates in the three Maryland counties and in two of the seven Virginia localities, about the same as that in Fairfax City, and lower than the rates in the other four Virginia localities. Comparison across jurisdictions, however, is complicated by differences in definition of taxable and exempt property and in depreciation provisions. Consider, for example, the fact that Loudoun County's first-year effective tax rate on machinery and equipment would be lower than that in Prince William County - 1.375 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively - despite the fact that the nominal rate in Loudoun is over one-third higher; the difference is due to the more generous depreciation allowed in Loudoun County. The varied depreciation provisions by type of property found in the District and in Maryland make simple comparison impossible.(4) Whatever the relative level of the District's tax, the trend clearly is away from taxation of business personal property. In part, this is because the tangible personal property tax necessitates compromising tax principles to fit available information and, in so doing, poses problems for compliance and administration. There is a lack of market-value data, so taxable values are cost-based. What the law requires differs from state to state, and sometimes (as in Virginia) within a state. The District uses original cost figures reduced by straight-line depreciation, to a floor value of 25 percent. Different requirements in different areas increase the workload on businesses operating in more than one area. Taxpayers are required to determine their District tax base, compute the tax, and remit it. Administrative effort comes in developing rules, depreciation categories, forms, and the like, establishing and maintaining a list of taxpayers, and auditing filed returns. Depreciated original cost values do not accord well with those used for the real property tax, and probably result in many inequities within the personal property tax. Moreover, so much personal property already has been exempted that equity via uniform treatment of all forms of property - held by some to be an important criterion - already has been sacrificed. Recommendation 2. If the personal property tax is retained by the District, attention should be given to ways in which it might be improved. A primary reason for not abolishing the personal property tax is revenue productivity. Although it is of relatively small and declining significance for the District, at 1.5 percent of total general fund revenue it is not insignificant, especially when compared to recent general-fund and tax growth rates (tables TP4 and TP5). However, given economic development concerns, being able to reduce the rate would seem desirable, perhaps through base broadening. Easier compliance might also be worth exploring, perhaps through simplification of depreciation requirements. Such an exploration should seek to determine whether there are substantial differences between the District's provisions and those of other jurisdictions in which District businesses may also be operating and subject to such a tax. If the incremental costs of compliance could be reduced, this could make the tax less of a factor. With regard to base broadening, there is a case for including motor vehicles. At least those above a certain value do represent taxpaying ability; their owners are relatively well off. Motor vehicles typically are the second-most-valuable assets of most household, after the home. Moreover, unlike many items of tangible personal property, motor vehicles can be located through licensing requirements, and readily available market data make valuation relatively easy. Extending the tax base to motor vehicles would broaden the base significantly, and could help to hold down tax rates elsewhere while enhancing equity by bringing in valuable assets that now escape taxation. Currently, the personal property tax yield is less than 10 percent of that for real property. A 1.0 percent tax on motor vehicles would amount to $100 on a car worth $10,000. The first several thousand dollars of value could be exempt from taxation, if equity concerns were thought to make this desirable. Motor vehicles are taxable under property tax provisions in 18 states, including Virginia (table TP1). Virginia's experience may not be a plus for this tax. The recent gubernatorial election there reportedly turned on the issue of abolishing this part of the personal property tax - an end to the "car tax" was pledged by the victor. However, in Virginia, motor vehicles typically are taxed at a rate several times that applied to real estate. The tax might be less of an issue at a lower rate. If the District were to give serious consideration to taxing motor vehicles, it would seem advisable to try to keep the rate close to one percent of value.
1. Those exempting in 1961 were Delaware, Hawaii, New York, and Pennsylvania; added later were Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Its extremely slight use of the tax essentially makes Minnesota the eleventh exempting state. 2. The tallies presented here from the Census [1994] enumeration differ to some extent the Mikesell [1995] finding that 10 states exempt all tangible personal property, and nearly all in an eleventh state. 3. Maryland tax regulation 18.03.01.02. Some specified categories of assets are depreciated at other than 10 percent , ranging from five percent to 50 percent. 4. Probably the most satisfactory way to compare the taxes in the various jurisdictions is to take the same financial statements - income and balance sheets - for businesses of the sort the District wishes to attract or retain, and apply the tax provisions of several locations to them to determine the differences in tax liabilities, by type of tax and overall, and to compare state-local taxes to financial flows. Such an undertaking is beyond the scope of this project. Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman. 1991a. "Gauging Assessment Uniformity: A Comparison of Measures." Property Tax Journal, 10 (December). Bell, Michael E. and John H. Bowman. 1991b. "Property Taxes." in Local Government Finance: Concepts and Practices, edited by John E. Petersen and Dennis R. Strachota. Chicago, Illinois: Government Finance Officers Association, pp. 85-111. Bowman, John H. 1987. "Real Property Classification: The States March to Different Drummers." In 1986 Proceedings of the Seventy-ninth Annual Conference on Taxation. Columbus, Ohio: National Tax Association-Tax Institute of America, pp. 288-96. Bowman, John H. 1986. "Direct Property Tax Relief in Minnesota: An Analysis." In Final Report of the Minnesota Tax Study Commission, Volume 2, Staff Papers, edited by Robert D. Ebel and Therese J. McGuire. St. Paul, Minnesota: Butterworths, 281-332. Bowman, John H.; George E. Hoffer; and Michael D. Pratt. 1990. "Current Patterns and Trends in State and Local Intangibles Taxation." National Tax Journal, 43 (December): 439-50. Bowman, John H. and John L. Mikesell. 1990. "Assessment Uniformity: The Standard and Its Attainment." Property Tax Journal, 9 (December): 219-33. Citizens for Fair Assessment. 1997. Report on Real Property Assessments, District of Columbia, Tax Year 1997. Washington, D.C.: Citizens for Fair Assessment. District of Columbia. 1997a. District of Columbia Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year Ended September 30, 1996. Washington, D.C.: Office of Financial Operations and Systems. District of Columbia. 1997b. Instructions for Filing 1998 D.C. Personal Property Tax Return. Washington, D.C.: Office of Tax and Revenue. District of Columbia. 1997c. 1997 Real Property Assessment/ Sales Ratio Study. Washington, D.C.: Office of Tax and Revenue. Washington, D.C.: Department of Finance and Revenue, Real Property Tax Administration. District of Columbia. 1997d. Triennial Assessment Process Briefing Package. Washington, D.C.: Real Property Tax Administration. District of Columbia. 1996a. A Comparison of Tax Rates and Burdens in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Washington, D.C.: Department of Finance and Revenue. District of Columbia. 1996b. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year Ended September 30, 1995. Washington, D.C.: Department of Finance and Revenue. District of Columbia. Undated. District of Columbia Tax Facts, Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994. Washington, D.C.: Department of Finance and Revenue, Office of Economic and Tax Policy. Eckert, Joseph K., editor. 1990. Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration. Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Assessing Officers. Fisher, Glenn W. 1996. The Worst Tax? A History of the Property Tax in America. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Gold, Steven D. 1984. "The Changing Shape of Property Tax Relief Since the Late 1960s." In Legal Problems in Property Assessment and Taxation. Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Assessing Officers, pp. 87-117. Gold, Steven D. 1979. Property Tax Relief. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company. Hatfield, Rolland F. 1967. "Minnesota's Experience with Classification." In The Property Tax: Problems and Potentials. Princeton, New Jersey: Tax Institute of America, pp. 239-44. Knapp, John L. 1993. 1993 Tax Rates in Virginia Cities, Counties, & Selected Towns. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia, Center for Public Service. Ladd, Helen F. and Katherine L. Bradbury. 1988. "City Taxes and Property Tax Bases." National Tax Journal, 41 (December): 503-523. Mark, Stephen T; Therese J. McGuire; and Leslie E. Papke. 1997. "The Effect of Taxes on Employment and Population in the Washington D.C. Area." Draft report prepared for the D.C. Tax Revision Commission. Maryland. 1989. Forty-fifth Annual Report of the State Department of Assessments and Taxation. Baltimore, Maryland: Department of Assessments and Taxation. Mikesell, John L. 1980. "Property Tax Reassessment Cycles: Significance for Uniformity and Effective Rates." Public Finance Quarterly, 8 (January): 23-37. Mikesell, John L. 1995. "Selected Business Property Taxation Issues: Personal Property." In Taxation of Business Property: Is Uniformity Still a Valid Norm?, edited by John H. Bowman. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, pp. 161-70. Minnesota Taxpayers Association. 1996. "50-State Property Tax Comparison by Minnesota Taxpayers Association Accompanies Call for Reform." Special Report/Viewpoint feature in State Tax Notes, 11 (August 12): 491-518. O'Cleireacain, Carol. 1997. The Orphaned Capital: Adopting the Right Revenues for the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Schwab, Robert M. and Amy Rehder Harris. 1997. "An Analysis of the Graded Property Tax." Prepared for the District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission. Smith, Adam. 1937. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited, with an introduction, notes, marginal summary and an enlarged index, by Edwin Canaan. New York: The Modern Library. (Originally published in 1776.) Sonstelie, Jon. 1978. "The Classified Property Tax." In Technical Aspects of the District's Tax System: Papers Prepared for the District of Columbia's Tax Revision Commission. Submitted to the Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, pp. 233-60. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1994a. Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism. Volume 1, Budget Processes and Tax Systems. Report M-190. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1994b. Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism. Volume 2, Revenues and Expenditures. Report M-190-II. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 2, Taxable Property Values, Number 1, Assessed Valuations for Local General Property Taxation. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Virginia Department of Taxation. 1997. The 1995 Virginia Assessment/Sales Ratio Study. Richmond, Virginia: Department of Taxation. Virginia Department of Taxation. 1995. Annual Report Fiscal Year 1995. Richmond, Virginia: Department of Taxation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
