Nekilnojamojo turto apmokestinimas Rytų ir Vidurio Europoje

Šiame straipsnyje daugiausia dėmesio skiriama nekilnojamojo turto apmokestinimo reformai. Tyrimo objektu pasirinkta Rytų ir Vidurio Europos Sąjungos valstybių grupė siekiant atskleisti, kokios bendros tendencijos pasireiškė šiame regione keičiant nekilnojamojo turto apmokestinimą nuo 1990 m. bei su kokiomis bendromis problemomis susiduriama užbaigiant nekilnojamojo turto mokesčio reformą. Atsižvelgiant į tai apžvelgiama, kaip privatizacija, restitucija, vietos savivaldos reforma bei kiti teisiniai ir ekonominiai procesai paveikė nekilnojamojo turto apmokestinimo pertvarką. Straipsnyje taip pat aptariamos perspektyvos suvienodinti šio mokesčio teisinį reglamentavimą Europos Sąjungoje.

This article deals with the property tax reform that was carried out in Lithuania as well as in other Eastern and Central European countries since the 1990s. Since the beginning of the 1990s most countries of this region have reshaped their national systems from command to free market economy, created a stabile market and some of them joined the European Union. Most of the new EU Member States from Eastern and Central Europe have taken much effort to make their national taxation more consistent and attractive for investors. In particular, these countries have already diminished or consider diminishing the rates of corporate, income and some other taxes. On the other hand, the decreased revenue should be collected from other sources. In this context, property taxes are supposed to be a proper alternative to reimburse the loss of revenue. Furthermore, property taxes are also appreciated due to their nonfiscal functions (e.g.role of property taxation for sustainable urbanisation, effective use of land, land improvement). Major economic and legal reforms in Eastern and Central European countries since the 1990s as well as their implication to the reform of property taxation are observed in this article. The author elucidates privatization, restitution (reestablishment of property rights), reforms of national tax systems, local governance, etc. It is concluded that not all the anticipated reforms have been carried out as quickly as they were planned. The protracted reform of modernisation of property taxes was partly stipulated by undeveloped real estate markets, lack of relevant data, delayed reestablishment of property rights as well as some other objective factors. On the other hand, the politicians were afraid to loose political support if they increase a tax burden. Moreover, lack of consistent national strategies on local taxes and local governance has contributed to successful finalization of property taxation.