Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While doing some tax research I encountered a city that imposes a 1.75% tax on residential rentals to "multiple unrelated tenants" - rentals to a family or an individual are not subject to this tax.
I had never previously heard of any tax like this, and it rubs me the wrong way.
Do you support this sort of tax? Does it constitute "culture war"? Is it okay to impose higher taxes on singles or to landlords who rent to singles?
This would vary by city. In Mesa AZ for example there is a 1.75% city tax if you lease to "multiple unrelated tenants" (typically non related students).
Note that the 1.75% tax is business tax - on retail and commercial leases, and on residential units if you own more than one rental unit. It does not apply though if you own just 1 rental unit - that is not considered a business - unless you rent it out to "multiple unrelated tenants" (ie: rotating multiple short term students through it). Then it is considered a business for tax purposes. The tax does not apply to "private single family residences" which "multiple unrelated tenants" are not.
This would vary by city. In Mesa AZ for example there is a 1.75% city tax if you lease to "multiple unrelated tenants" (typically non related students).
Note that the 1.75% tax is business tax - on retail and commercial leases, and on residential units if you own more than one rental unit. It does not apply though if you own just 1 rental unit - that is not considered a business - unless you rent it out to "multiple unrelated tenants" (ie: rotating multiple short term students through it). Then it is considered a business for tax purposes. The tax does not apply to "private single family residences" which "multiple unrelated tenants" are not.
So it applies if you own only one rental property and you rent it to "multiple unrelated tenants". Landlords are given the option of bundling the tax into the rent charged, or breaking out the tax as a separate charge.
I'm aware that landlords have varying policies on renting to multiple unrelated tenants, I've never before seen government treat them differently than they treat other monthly rentals.
To me that looks like a penalty for being poor, since landlords do pass the tax to their tenants, and often explicitly so. I once rented from a retired teacher who lived in the house until retirement; she kept the house as a rental with the primary purpose to allow her children to inherit it with a stepped-up tax basis. I have difficulty with the logic that if she rents the house to multiple unrelated tenants she's operating a business, but if she rents it to a family or an individual, she's not operating a business.
In this case it is a local issue but presumably there is nothing to stop other locals from doing the same thing and ultimately making it a commonplace.
Since the tax is often explicitly paid by tenants, do tenants have any recourse or action on the 14th Amendment ground of equal protection? (There isn't a law forum here, so this is the best place I could find.)
Is it okay to impose higher taxes on singles or to landlords who rent to singles?
it is "okay", in the sense that it is legal, and generally tolerable. but the cohort we're talking about tends to be young and poor, and imposing 'special' taxes on a group of people that are disproportionately poor is not ethical IMO.
it sounds like a misguided attempt to keep a neighborhood or area free from college age people.
While doing some tax research I encountered a city that imposes a 1.75% tax on residential rentals to "multiple unrelated tenants" - rentals to a family or an individual are not subject to this tax.
I had never previously heard of any tax like this, and it rubs me the wrong way.
Do you support this sort of tax? Does it constitute "culture war"? Is it okay to impose higher taxes on singles or to landlords who rent to singles?
Actually, not that long ago unrelated adults were not allowed to cohabit in part of northern Virginia.
So three single women could not rent a house together? Wow
A century ago, unmarried women were expected to live with their parents and unmarried men were expected to live in crummy rooming or boarding houses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I encountered a city that imposes a 1.75% tax on residential rentals to "multiple unrelated tenants" - rentals to a family or an individual are not subject to this tax.
