It is obvious however that a new tax may result in exactly opposing effects. The means of introducing this new tax by the government should be made clear. The principle is simple but its execution is more complex and there is no carefully considered plan for introduction. Who will be subject to the tax payment liability? (Will hospitals, schools, universities and museums belong to the real estates subject to tax payment?) Is there available capacity in the country for the valuation of all the real estates taxed? What opportunities of legal remedy would be available for tax payers who do not agree with the valuation of their real estates? What happens to the people on low pensions who own valuable real estates?

Regarding the execution of the real estate tax in Canada Couture pointed out that there it is applied as a local tax used to finance local public services. Thus tax payers may have better control on its utilization. This system works well in Canada and the rate of tax does not change as towns compete with one another in this respect.

This tax affects and may affect the office leasing market in Hungary as well: Owners of class “A” office buildings will naturally make efforts to charge this extra tax on lessees (tenants). Through the example of a class “A” office building sold recently Colliers expert pointed out that in case of 1% real estate tax the service costs paid by the lessees could rise by € 1.43 per square meter monthly.

This tax has an interesting long-term effect that may be called an advantage, provided that the major players on the market intend to increase the value of the real estates. This may be an important argument for real estate developers and investors as they will be able present the effects of the projects implemented in numbers at the incomes of the local governments (municipalities). If tax must be paid, it should be paid at least “efficiently”.