學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 房屋稅稅基變革對於公部門房地估價公平性之影響
The Impact of Raising House Tax Base on the Equity of Property Tax Assessment作者 楊子瑩
Yang, Zih-Ying貢獻者 林子欽
Lin, Tzu-Chin
楊子瑩
Yang, Zih-Ying關鍵詞 房屋稅稅基
估價比值
估價公平性
House Tax base
Assessment ratio
Valuation equity日期 2022 上傳時間 2-Sep-2022 15:20:07 (UTC+8) 摘要 在普遍認知中，隨著不動產市場價格的提高，房屋稅稅基也應隨市價調整。房屋稅條例第11條規定：「...房屋標準價格，每三年重行評定一次。…」，然而臺北市卻一直到103年7月1日起才調高新建房屋的標準單價，並且一併調整部分路段率。這樣的財產稅重估議題不只發生在台灣的房屋稅，國際上也有類似的許久不調整財產稅稅基爭議，因此，本研究希望能透過國際案例，如英美二國財產稅案例的帶入，藉由這些經驗，找出較適合台灣整體稅制環境的改進方向。台北市103年的房屋稅標準單價改革只適用在103年7月後完工之新建房屋，亦即在這時間點前後完工之房屋，即使時間相差不久，稅額卻有所相當大的差異，相當不合理。因此，本研究使用103年7月1日至106年6月30日之實價登錄資料，探討若將新標準單價不論完工日期一律溯及既往地適用，是否會讓房地估價更具公平性。估價公平性意指以其市場銷售價格的相似比例為評估價值之不動產，違反該標準被視為估價不公平之證據。首先，將估價比值作為評估房屋稅稅基公平性之工具，該比值以公部門評估價值為分子、市場價格為分母，再進一步地採用各交易案例之估價比值資料，運用離散係數（COD）、價格相關差異（PRD）及迴歸模型分析不同情境下之估價公平性，找出相對較佳之房屋稅制方案，此外，也進行空間自相關分析，探討估價比值離群值是否存在聚集之現象。實證結果顯示，回溯適用新標準單價並採行新路段率，使得估價上更具有水平公平性，且垂直公平性無明顯變化；空間分析方面，發現溯及既往地適用新標準單價將稍微緩減評估有誤樣本之聚集程度。因此本研究認為台北市房屋稅制度若能改為回溯適用新標準單價於所有房屋，將有助於房地估價公平性的提升，並且讓房地估價更具空間公平性。
People generally believe that house tax base should be periodically valued along with rising market value. Article 11 of House Tax Act stipulates that the standard house price shall be reassessed every three years. However, Taipei city government had not raised the standard house price until July 1st, 2014, and also raised “the adjustment rate associated with the activity level of street or road” in the same year. Such disputes over property tax reassessment not only occur in Taiwan but also globally. Therefore, this study first examines international cases, such as the U.K. council tax and property tax in California. By introducing those international experiences, this study hopes to find a way to improving Taiwan house tax policy.The reform of the standard house value is only applicable to newly-built houses which were constructed after July 1st, 2014. In other words, the owner of those newly built houses need to pay much higher tax then chose comparables but only slighty younger, and it seems to be quite unreasonable. Thus, to explore whether applying new standard house value to all houses will improve fairness, this study investigates market sales data from July 1st, 2014 to June 30th, 2017. Valuation equity is defined as properties being valued at the similar percentage of their market sales price. Violation of the equity criterion is considered as an evidence of valuation inequity. First, this study employs assessment ratio for assessing the equity of house tax base, and defined this ratio as “public assessed value divided by market value.” To go a step further, this study calculates assessment ratio for each sale, and use statistical indicators such as coefficient of dispersion (COD), price-related differential (PRD), and regression models to analyze valuation equity under different scenarios. Furthermore, this study estimates spatial autocorrelation to reveal the distribution of the assessment ratio outliers. Empirical evidence suggests that horizontal equity improves if we apply new standard house value to houses of all ages and also adopt the new “adjustment rate associated with the level of street or road.” In contrast, there is no evidence of improving or worsening vertical equity to be either improved or worsened if same measures are implemented. The results in spatial analysis indicate that applying new standard house value houses of all ages will lead to a lower degree of aggregation among assessment ratio outliers. Accordingly, this study concludes that applying new standard house value to houses of all ages can help improve property tax assessment equity in Taipei city, and also improves spatial equity.參考文獻 一、網站：1990: Violence flares in poll tax demonstration (No date). BBC, on this day, march 31. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/31/newsid_2530000/2530763.stmCalifornia State Board of Equalization (No date). Decline in Value – Proposition 8. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/decline-in-value/#DescriptionPA Media (2021). MPs call for ‘long overdue’ reform of council tax property values in England. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jul/19/mps-call-for-reform-council-tax-property-values-englandValuation Office Agency (2016). How domestic properties are assessed for Council Tax bands. GOV.UK, guidance and support, 22 January 2016 (Updated 13 February 2020). https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understand-how-council-tax-bands-are-assessedWalesOnline (2004). Wales `guinea pig` for council tax changes. WalesOnline, 30 December 2004 (Updated 31 March 2013). https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-guinea-pig-council-tax-2413677二、英文文獻：Allen, M. (2003). Measuring vertical property tax inequity in multifamily property markets. Journal of Real Estate Research, 25(2), 171-184.Allen, M., & Dare, W. (2002). Identifying determinants of horizontal property tax inequity: Evidence from Florida. Journal of Real Estate Research, 24(2), 153-164.Baum, A., Sams, G., Ellis, J., Hampson, C., & Stevens, D. (2007). Statutory valuations. EG Books.Birch, J. W., Sunderman, M. A., & Smith, B. C. (2004). Vertical inequity in property taxation: A neighborhood based analysis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29(1), 71-78.Danforth, E. (2021). Proposition 13, Revisited. Stan. L. Rev., 73, 511.Fischel, W. A. (1989). Did" Serrano" Cause Proposition 13? National Tax Journal, 42(4), 465-473.Gary, C., & Barrett, S. (2005). Property taxation of multifamily housing: an empirical analysis of vertical and horizontal equity. Journal of Real Estate Research, 27(1), 17-46.Gervais, M., & Rayford, D. (2011). IN PURSUIT OF EQUITY IN PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION: DISCUSSING THE FLAWED IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSITION 13 [Article]. Virginia Tax Review, 30(4), 761-794. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=60526473&lang=zh-tw&site=ehost-liveGetis, Arthur, and J. K. Ord. (1992). The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24(3).Giles, C., & Ridge, M. (1993). Right this Time?: An Analysis of the First Year`s Council Tax Figures. Institute for Fiscal Studies London WC1E 7AE.Harris, R., & Lehman, M. (2001). Social and geographic inequities in the residential property tax: a review and case study. Environment and planning A, 33(5), 881-900.Jones, C., Leishman, C., & Orr, A. M. (2006). The potential impact of reforms to the essential parameters of the Council Tax. Fiscal Studies, 27(2), 205-229.Kelly, R. (2014). Implementing sustainable property tax reform in developing countries. In Taxation and Development: The Weakest Link? Edward Elgar Publishing.Kenway, P., & Palmer, G. (2003). COUNCIL TAX REVALUATION: COPING WITH REGIONAL EFFECTS. New Policy Institute.Kenway, P., & Pannell, J. (2003). The Impact of Council Tax on Older People’s Income (Help the Aged, Issue.Orton, M. (2005). Inequality and the reform of a regressive local tax: the debate in the UK. Social Policy and Society, 4(3), 251-258.Plimmer, F., McCluskey, W., & Connellan, O. (1999). Reform of UK local government domestic property taxes. Property Management.Prabhakar, R. (2016). How did the Welsh government manage to reform council tax in 2005? Public Money & Management, 36(6), 417-424.Roeckl-Navarzio, M., & Lee, A. (2020). Proposition 15: The California Schools and Local Communities Act of 2020. California Initiative Review (CIR), 2020(1), 3.Rosengard, J. K. (2012). The tax everyone loves to hate: principles of property tax reform. Harvard Kennedy School wp, (10).Sexton, T. A., Sheffrin, S. M., & O`Sullivan, A. (1999). Proposition 13: Unintended effects and feasible reforms. National Tax Journal, 52(1), 99-111.Slack, E., & Bird, R. M. (2015). How to reform the property tax: lessons from around the world. Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.Sterk, S. E., & Engler, M. L. (2005). Property tax reassessment: Who needs it. Notre Dame L. Rev., 81, 1037.Sexton, T. A., Sheffrin, S. M., & O`Sullivan, A. (1999). Proposition 13: Unintended effects and feasible reforms. National Tax Journal, 52(1), 99-111.International Association of Assessing Officers (1978). Improving Real Property Assessment: A Reference Manual. Chicago, IL: IAAO.The International Association of Assessing Officers (2013). Standard on Ratio Studies.Wassmer, R. W., Fisher, R. C., & Kuloszewski, Z. (2019). Perspectives of the Property Tax Forty Years after Proposition 13. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 1(1).三、中文文獻內政部地政司（2022）。歷年公告土地現值及公告地價占一般正常交易價格百分比統計表。取自https://www.land.moi.gov.tw/upload/k2-20220105142722.pdf（瀏覽日期：2022年7月20日）。王宏文（2010）。臺北市地價稅公平性之研究。行政濟政策學報，51：47-76。王宏文、曾彥閔（2013）。臺北市與高雄市住宅財產稅之比較: 兼論兩市財稅努力之差異。政治科學論叢，56：119-156。江穎慧（2021）。109年度第二學期《電腦輔助大量估價專題研究》課堂講義。林子欽、林子雅（2008）。公部門不動產估價成效評估─公平性之觀點。住宅學報，17（2）：63-80。洪暉恒（2020）。臺北市大型商用建築物成本法估價公平性評估-估價比值應用。國立政治大學碩士論文。黃佳鈴、張金鶚（2005）。從房地價格分離探討地價指數之建立。臺灣土地研究，8（2）：73-106。曾巨威（2011）。房屋稅課徵合理化。臺北市稅捐稽徵處100年度專案研究計畫。陳振惟（2017）。公告現值公平性之研究-以松山區及信義區為例。臺北市政府地政局暨所屬機關 106 年度自行研究報告。陳德翰、王宏文（2013）。臺北市財產稅公平性之研究。臺灣土地研究，16（2）：89-139。游適銘（2018）。房地合一課徵不動產持有稅探討─英國經驗之借鏡。財稅研究，47（4）：54-72。溫在弘（2015）。空間分析：方法與應用。臺北市：雙葉書廊。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2011）。100年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2011）。100年臺北市不動產評價委員會臨時會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2014）。103年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2017）。106年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2017）。106年臺北市不動產評價委員會臨時會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2020）。109年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。蔡吉源（2001）。臺灣土地課稅制度：問題、影響與改革。臺灣土地研究，3：37-82。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
109257025資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109257025 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 林子欽 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Tzu-Chin en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 楊子瑩 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yang, Zih-Ying en_US dc.creator (作者) 楊子瑩 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yang, Zih-Ying en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2022 15:20:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2022 15:20:07 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2022 15:20:07 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109257025 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141711 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 地政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109257025 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在普遍認知中，隨著不動產市場價格的提高，房屋稅稅基也應隨市價調整。房屋稅條例第11條規定：「...房屋標準價格，每三年重行評定一次。…」，然而臺北市卻一直到103年7月1日起才調高新建房屋的標準單價，並且一併調整部分路段率。這樣的財產稅重估議題不只發生在台灣的房屋稅，國際上也有類似的許久不調整財產稅稅基爭議，因此，本研究希望能透過國際案例，如英美二國財產稅案例的帶入，藉由這些經驗，找出較適合台灣整體稅制環境的改進方向。台北市103年的房屋稅標準單價改革只適用在103年7月後完工之新建房屋，亦即在這時間點前後完工之房屋，即使時間相差不久，稅額卻有所相當大的差異，相當不合理。因此，本研究使用103年7月1日至106年6月30日之實價登錄資料，探討若將新標準單價不論完工日期一律溯及既往地適用，是否會讓房地估價更具公平性。估價公平性意指以其市場銷售價格的相似比例為評估價值之不動產，違反該標準被視為估價不公平之證據。首先，將估價比值作為評估房屋稅稅基公平性之工具，該比值以公部門評估價值為分子、市場價格為分母，再進一步地採用各交易案例之估價比值資料，運用離散係數（COD）、價格相關差異（PRD）及迴歸模型分析不同情境下之估價公平性，找出相對較佳之房屋稅制方案，此外，也進行空間自相關分析，探討估價比值離群值是否存在聚集之現象。實證結果顯示，回溯適用新標準單價並採行新路段率，使得估價上更具有水平公平性，且垂直公平性無明顯變化；空間分析方面，發現溯及既往地適用新標準單價將稍微緩減評估有誤樣本之聚集程度。因此本研究認為台北市房屋稅制度若能改為回溯適用新標準單價於所有房屋，將有助於房地估價公平性的提升，並且讓房地估價更具空間公平性。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) People generally believe that house tax base should be periodically valued along with rising market value. Article 11 of House Tax Act stipulates that the standard house price shall be reassessed every three years. However, Taipei city government had not raised the standard house price until July 1st, 2014, and also raised “the adjustment rate associated with the activity level of street or road” in the same year. Such disputes over property tax reassessment not only occur in Taiwan but also globally. Therefore, this study first examines international cases, such as the U.K. council tax and property tax in California. By introducing those international experiences, this study hopes to find a way to improving Taiwan house tax policy.The reform of the standard house value is only applicable to newly-built houses which were constructed after July 1st, 2014. In other words, the owner of those newly built houses need to pay much higher tax then chose comparables but only slighty younger, and it seems to be quite unreasonable. Thus, to explore whether applying new standard house value to all houses will improve fairness, this study investigates market sales data from July 1st, 2014 to June 30th, 2017. Valuation equity is defined as properties being valued at the similar percentage of their market sales price. Violation of the equity criterion is considered as an evidence of valuation inequity. First, this study employs assessment ratio for assessing the equity of house tax base, and defined this ratio as “public assessed value divided by market value.” To go a step further, this study calculates assessment ratio for each sale, and use statistical indicators such as coefficient of dispersion (COD), price-related differential (PRD), and regression models to analyze valuation equity under different scenarios. Furthermore, this study estimates spatial autocorrelation to reveal the distribution of the assessment ratio outliers. Empirical evidence suggests that horizontal equity improves if we apply new standard house value to houses of all ages and also adopt the new “adjustment rate associated with the level of street or road.” In contrast, there is no evidence of improving or worsening vertical equity to be either improved or worsened if same measures are implemented. The results in spatial analysis indicate that applying new standard house value houses of all ages will lead to a lower degree of aggregation among assessment ratio outliers. Accordingly, this study concludes that applying new standard house value to houses of all ages can help improve property tax assessment equity in Taipei city, and also improves spatial equity. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與目的 1第二節 研究範圍與方法 6第三節 研究架構與流程 8第貳章 國際上財產稅稅基調整爭議 9第一節 稅基調整方式 10第二節 英國市政稅（Council Tax） 14第三節 加州第十三號憲法修正案 23第四節 國外案例對臺灣的啟示 32第參章 臺北市房屋稅制歷史及改變 34第一節 臺灣房屋稅制簡介 34第二節 臺北市近年房屋稅稅基政策演變 36第三節 研究議題之選定 50第肆章 資料及研究方法 51第一節 資料來源與限制 51第二節 估價公平性衡量模型建構 60第三節 估價比值之空間分布 65第伍章 實證分析 67第一節 資料篩選與處理 67第二節 估價比值分析 71第三節 空間分析 84第四節 小結 95第陸章 結論與建議 96第一節 結論 96第二節 後續研究建議 100參考文獻 101 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2195824 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109257025 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 房屋稅稅基 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 估價比值 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 估價公平性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) House Tax base en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Assessment ratio en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Valuation equity en_US dc.title (題名) 房屋稅稅基變革對於公部門房地估價公平性之影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Impact of Raising House Tax Base on the Equity of Property Tax Assessment en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、網站：1990: Violence flares in poll tax demonstration (No date). BBC, on this day, march 31. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/31/newsid_2530000/2530763.stmCalifornia State Board of Equalization (No date). Decline in Value – Proposition 8. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/decline-in-value/#DescriptionPA Media (2021). MPs call for ‘long overdue’ reform of council tax property values in England. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jul/19/mps-call-for-reform-council-tax-property-values-englandValuation Office Agency (2016). How domestic properties are assessed for Council Tax bands. GOV.UK, guidance and support, 22 January 2016 (Updated 13 February 2020). https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understand-how-council-tax-bands-are-assessedWalesOnline (2004). Wales `guinea pig` for council tax changes. WalesOnline, 30 December 2004 (Updated 31 March 2013). https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-guinea-pig-council-tax-2413677二、英文文獻：Allen, M. (2003). Measuring vertical property tax inequity in multifamily property markets. Journal of Real Estate Research, 25(2), 171-184.Allen, M., & Dare, W. (2002). Identifying determinants of horizontal property tax inequity: Evidence from Florida. Journal of Real Estate Research, 24(2), 153-164.Baum, A., Sams, G., Ellis, J., Hampson, C., & Stevens, D. (2007). Statutory valuations. EG Books.Birch, J. W., Sunderman, M. A., & Smith, B. C. (2004). Vertical inequity in property taxation: A neighborhood based analysis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29(1), 71-78.Danforth, E. (2021). Proposition 13, Revisited. Stan. L. Rev., 73, 511.Fischel, W. A. (1989). Did" Serrano" Cause Proposition 13? National Tax Journal, 42(4), 465-473.Gary, C., & Barrett, S. (2005). Property taxation of multifamily housing: an empirical analysis of vertical and horizontal equity. Journal of Real Estate Research, 27(1), 17-46.Gervais, M., & Rayford, D. (2011). IN PURSUIT OF EQUITY IN PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION: DISCUSSING THE FLAWED IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSITION 13 [Article]. Virginia Tax Review, 30(4), 761-794. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=60526473&lang=zh-tw&site=ehost-liveGetis, Arthur, and J. K. Ord. (1992). The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24(3).Giles, C., & Ridge, M. (1993). Right this Time?: An Analysis of the First Year`s Council Tax Figures. Institute for Fiscal Studies London WC1E 7AE.Harris, R., & Lehman, M. (2001). Social and geographic inequities in the residential property tax: a review and case study. Environment and planning A, 33(5), 881-900.Jones, C., Leishman, C., & Orr, A. M. (2006). The potential impact of reforms to the essential parameters of the Council Tax. Fiscal Studies, 27(2), 205-229.Kelly, R. (2014). Implementing sustainable property tax reform in developing countries. In Taxation and Development: The Weakest Link? Edward Elgar Publishing.Kenway, P., & Palmer, G. (2003). COUNCIL TAX REVALUATION: COPING WITH REGIONAL EFFECTS. New Policy Institute.Kenway, P., & Pannell, J. (2003). The Impact of Council Tax on Older People’s Income (Help the Aged, Issue.Orton, M. (2005). Inequality and the reform of a regressive local tax: the debate in the UK. Social Policy and Society, 4(3), 251-258.Plimmer, F., McCluskey, W., & Connellan, O. (1999). Reform of UK local government domestic property taxes. Property Management.Prabhakar, R. (2016). How did the Welsh government manage to reform council tax in 2005? Public Money & Management, 36(6), 417-424.Roeckl-Navarzio, M., & Lee, A. (2020). Proposition 15: The California Schools and Local Communities Act of 2020. California Initiative Review (CIR), 2020(1), 3.Rosengard, J. K. (2012). The tax everyone loves to hate: principles of property tax reform. Harvard Kennedy School wp, (10).Sexton, T. A., Sheffrin, S. M., & O`Sullivan, A. (1999). Proposition 13: Unintended effects and feasible reforms. National Tax Journal, 52(1), 99-111.Slack, E., & Bird, R. M. (2015). How to reform the property tax: lessons from around the world. Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.Sterk, S. E., & Engler, M. L. (2005). Property tax reassessment: Who needs it. Notre Dame L. Rev., 81, 1037.Sexton, T. A., Sheffrin, S. M., & O`Sullivan, A. (1999). Proposition 13: Unintended effects and feasible reforms. National Tax Journal, 52(1), 99-111.International Association of Assessing Officers (1978). Improving Real Property Assessment: A Reference Manual. Chicago, IL: IAAO.The International Association of Assessing Officers (2013). Standard on Ratio Studies.Wassmer, R. W., Fisher, R. C., & Kuloszewski, Z. (2019). Perspectives of the Property Tax Forty Years after Proposition 13. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 1(1).三、中文文獻內政部地政司（2022）。歷年公告土地現值及公告地價占一般正常交易價格百分比統計表。取自https://www.land.moi.gov.tw/upload/k2-20220105142722.pdf（瀏覽日期：2022年7月20日）。王宏文（2010）。臺北市地價稅公平性之研究。行政濟政策學報，51：47-76。王宏文、曾彥閔（2013）。臺北市與高雄市住宅財產稅之比較: 兼論兩市財稅努力之差異。政治科學論叢，56：119-156。江穎慧（2021）。109年度第二學期《電腦輔助大量估價專題研究》課堂講義。林子欽、林子雅（2008）。公部門不動產估價成效評估─公平性之觀點。住宅學報，17（2）：63-80。洪暉恒（2020）。臺北市大型商用建築物成本法估價公平性評估-估價比值應用。國立政治大學碩士論文。黃佳鈴、張金鶚（2005）。從房地價格分離探討地價指數之建立。臺灣土地研究，8（2）：73-106。曾巨威（2011）。房屋稅課徵合理化。臺北市稅捐稽徵處100年度專案研究計畫。陳振惟（2017）。公告現值公平性之研究-以松山區及信義區為例。臺北市政府地政局暨所屬機關 106 年度自行研究報告。陳德翰、王宏文（2013）。臺北市財產稅公平性之研究。臺灣土地研究，16（2）：89-139。游適銘（2018）。房地合一課徵不動產持有稅探討─英國經驗之借鏡。財稅研究，47（4）：54-72。溫在弘（2015）。空間分析：方法與應用。臺北市：雙葉書廊。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2011）。100年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2011）。100年臺北市不動產評價委員會臨時會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2014）。103年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2017）。106年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2017）。106年臺北市不動產評價委員會臨時會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。臺北市稅捐稽徵處（2020）。109年臺北市不動產評價委員會常會紀錄。臺北市不動產評價委員會，臺北市政府。蔡吉源（2001）。臺灣土地課稅制度：問題、影響與改革。臺灣土地研究，3：37-82。 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201478 en_US
