Re-examine the property tax law

In the coming days and weeks much will be said about such things as the propriety of seeking to levy this tax on a population already bending under the weight of the present economic decline, the manner in which properties will be valued and the uses to which the revenues derived from this tax will be put.

There is much merit in the assertion that property tax implementation should accompany local government reform so that property taxes levied in a local community will be forwarded to the regional corporation with jurisdiction over that local community to provide services to that local community.

What is the justification for forcing the man in Scarborough to pay property tax that will be used to service the man in San Juan? How is that fair? The public is also very anxious and stressed about the State’s silence on the methodology that will be employed to assess property values.

Our society is quite unlike developed countries where homes in particular areas have some level of homogeneity.

Our planning laws have been non-existent or unenforced and therefore property development has been a virtual free-for-all. On any given street, except maybe in recently built gated communities, great variation exists in property development, appearance and use.

How is there going to be equitable and just valuation of such properties? One also expects that in the coming days and weeks much will be said, hopefully before the courts, about the constitutionality of the Property Tax Act.

The Act contains many provisions that infringe upon one’s enjoyment of property, eg unpaid taxes can become a charge on one’s land and there are circumstances in which one’s property can be distrained upon for unpaid taxes or even seized by the State.

With all these provisions, the Act was passed by the Manning government with a simple majority and not a special majority. So one expects that eventually the courts will have something to say about the validity of the legislation.

But it is early days still.

Until all of the above takes place, the average citizen is asking: “What should I do?” Many have received in their mailbox (a) an unsigned, unaddressed “request” asking them to send to the Valuation Division “as many supporting documents as possible” and (b) a Schedule II Return to be filled out.

In an attempt to assist the public, and having looked that the relevant legislation I say as follows: In relation to the “request” for documents, the only statutory provision which empowers the Commissioner of Valuations to request documents from members of the public is Section 15(3) of the Valuation of Land Act. That section authorises the commissioner to request documents by serving a notice in writing, signed by the commissioner or an authorised officer, on the person in possession of land.

The unaddressed, unsigned “request” which people have received in their mailbox does not comply with the Act and is therefore in my respectful view null and void under the relevant legislation. There is therefore nothing in law to compel people to send their documents to the Valuation Division.

As to the Schedule II return, I would suggest that until the law is declared unconstitutional, people may decide to fill in the return and send same to the Valuation Division.

In the meantime much more is needed to be done in relation to this legislation. The Government would be wise to re-examine the constitutionality of this legislation and if deemed constitutional, provide the public with the necessary education on the measure and assurances of equity and justice in its implementation.

LARRY N LALLA via email