土地增值稅值得轉(zhuǎn)變嗎【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　中文4080字</b></p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　land value tax:worth the transition</p><p>　　land tax:a better way<

2、;/p><p>　　Land Value Taxation is an annual tax on the market rental value of land.It would be levied as a fixed rate,Muellbauer suggests 0.5% in chaper three.It taxes the given value of the land,not the develop

3、ment that has occurred on it,and does so whether or not the land has been sold.It has,therefore,a number of advantages over other forms of taxation and addresses a number of the concerns raised obove,especially incentive

4、s,equity and economic efficiency.</p><p>　　As an annual charge on the rental value of the land,LVT would not be a tax on transaction and therefore development.As outlined above,not only would this conflict l

5、ess with government policy to deliver an increase in the rate of housebuilding,it could actively promote it by providing incentives for local anthorities to encourage development.An annual tax on the market rental value

6、of the land-levied regardless of the land use or development on it-would further promote the re-use of brownfield la</p><p>　　LVT also has the benefit of capturing the increase in private wealth that accure

7、through public investment.As an annual fixed rate,revenues would rise as the land’s market value（and therefore tax base）increase.In theory,therefore,there it could provide an automatic revenue stream to help fund infrast

8、ructure projects.</p><p>　　There is the need for some caution,however.Forms of land taxation have been tried before.As Table 1 outlines,there have been four attempts since World War Two.These previous taxes

9、have aimed to capture windfall gains from both the granting of planning permission and also in the case of the Development Land Tax,from development itself.Many reasons have been advanced for their failure.Some complain

10、of their complexity and the fact that none of them were given time to bed-in (Connellan and Lichfiel</p><p>　　Table 1:Past UK Examples of forms of Land Taxation in the UK</p><p>　　Source:adapted

11、 from Connellan and Lichfield(2000)</p><p>　　Indeed,advocates often point to Denmark and New Zealand as examples where LVT has worked,with both introuducing quite radical schemes in 19th Century.However,bot

12、h countries have removed their major forms of LVT and retain less radical property taxation(Andelson,2000).Despite these and the UK’s setbacks LVT should not necessarily be dismissed.A number of other countries use forms

13、 of LVT as part of their fiscal framework-South Afica,some Caribbean states and Western Canada,for example.Slightly di</p><p>　　Radical reform,not sudden reform</p><p>　　All of these arguments p

14、oint to the need for reform of how property is taxed in Britain. Simply revaluing homes and introducing a Planning-gain supplement will not prevent these problems from recurning.But radical reform does not mean sudden re

15、form,and the political and logistical barriers to LVT make it a distant goal at best.To make LVT achievable,we must plan how to get there.</p><p>　　Firstly, the current tinkering should be publicly acknowled

16、ged as a stepping stone,not a destination.Simply by announcing in which direction it wishes to travel,the government has the power to focus debate and engage the thoughts and experiences of academics and professionals.It

17、 is clear from the previous attempts at land taxation that buliding a cross-party political consensus is also important.Ippr’s recent cross-party Commission on Sustainable Development did exactly this,arguing: a land val

18、u</p><p>　　Secondly,the details of upcoming reform should be designed with a more ambitious goal in mind.Returning to the problems described at the start of this introduction tells us what changes are needed

19、.</p><p>　　To create an automatic stabiliser for the housing market,property taxes must respond better to differences over time,between regions,and between properties.Making revaluation an annual process and

20、 creating more bands would go some way to achieving this.</p><p>　　To capture some of the private profit from public infrastructure investment,the relationship between central and local government will have

21、to be addressed.As already stated above,this perennial issue is unlikely to be resolved with the publication of the Lyons Inquiry.This may actually be a good thing.It seems far more sensible to start from a question of w

22、hat local government is for,and then how should it be financed,rather than the political fire-fighting that Lyons is engaged with.At a time </p><p>　　The Plannnig-gain Supplement,proposed by Barker(2004)and

23、likely to be adopted by the government,establishes the principle that some increases in value arise from public action,rather than private,and that it is therefore legitimate for it to be used for the public good.This pr

24、inciple must be articulated.PGS should be used as a “wedge issue”,expanding the space in which the idea is accepted(see,for example Akerlof 2005),and making it easier to apply it more widely.The government must therefore

25、 ba</p><p>　　Finally,in the longer term,a change in the tax system presents an opportunity to iron out the arbitrary jumps in stamp duty.Simply changing “slad”structure,so that higher rates would apply only

26、to the additional pound over a threshold,would impose a considerable cost to the exchequer.Every house over $120000 would pay $1200 less tax,every house over $250000 would pay $6200 less,and over $500000,$11200 less.Atte

27、mpting to recover this revenue through a new top-rate would prove politically difficul</p><p>　　There does not seem to be the political appetite for significant reform of property taxation.Yet it is clear th

28、at property taxation does not currently efficiently or equitably promote government objectives.2005 is an important year in the on-going Lyons Inquiry should not serve to close off debate on more profound reform of prope

29、rty taxation.This is not a call for a revolution in taxation.We are not what Andelson(2000:xix)has termed“whole-hoggers”,we do not believe that LVT is“the sovereign path</p><p>　　Could land tax work</p>

30、;<p>　　Since Lloyd George,there have been several abortive attempts to tax the windfall gains from planning permission.The standard text on the UK tax system,one of whose authors is now the Governor of the Bank of

31、 England,insists that “the underlying intellectual argument for seeking to tax economic rent retains its force”(Kay and King 1990,P.179).Since 1947 ,land value in the UK has depended on its planning status.If a field is

32、zoned for agriculture,it is worth a few thousand pounds per hectare.If it </p><p>　　There are two main objections:the expectation that the would not be permanent,and the costs of assessment.Property interest

33、s have always seen off past attempts at land taxation.This happened not only in 1909 and 1914,but also,as Barker(2003,Box 7.3)notes,in 1947,1967,1974,and 1985.On each occasion,they did succeed.The inference to draw is no

34、t Barker’s inference that land taxation is unfeasible.It is that any tax should be a tax on capital value,not a tax on transactions.</p><p>　　The second objection to land value taxation is the difficulty of

35、assessment.This is less of a problem than it seems.The same difficulty faces both business rates and council tax,the two taxes that land value tax would replace (in whole or in part).Both of these taxes are linked to val

36、uations that rapidly go out of date.Council tax bands are determined by houses’value in 1991.The next Council Tax revaluation in England is due in 2007 and the political flak has already started to fly.A 2005 revalu</

37、p><p>　　The base for Uniform Business Rate is revalued only every five years.The more time that elapses between valuations,the more those whose assets have risen in relative value have an incentive to block rev

38、aluation.It was just such a revolt against rating revaluation in the 1980s that led to the poll tax disaster.</p><p>　　Enough houses change hands every year that the capital value of every house in the land

39、could be calculated annually.Estate agents do it all the time,in their ordinary business.Therefore there is no reason why a public sector valuer (the existing Valuation service or a successor) could not do the same.Comme

40、rcial and industrial property changes hands less often,so that annual valuation of every parcel of land may not be feasible.But this is not an insuperable objection.At worst a government could</p><p>　　A thi

41、rd objection,currently politically salient,is that any property tax including land tax penalises the “asset-rich but cash-poor”-who in current debate are characterised as “Devon pensioners”.The first,robust,answer,is tha

42、t Devon pensioners should face the real opportuninty cost of continuing to live in large houses,and they have options of taking in lodgers or trading down to smaller houses.A softer answer is that the tax liability on a

43、freehold house could be deferred if the householder can</p><p>　　Source: Dominic Maxwell and Anthony Vigor,2006.“l(fā)and value tax:worth the transition”.university of oxford.april,pp.5-7,18-20.</p><p

44、><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　土地增值稅：值得轉(zhuǎn)變嗎</p><p>　　土地增值稅：一個(gè)更好的方式</p><p>　　土地增值稅是在土地市場(chǎng)租賃價(jià)格基礎(chǔ)上的一種每年必須繳納的稅收，它將按固定比率進(jìn)行征收，米爾鮑爾在本文第三章中提出該固定比率為0.5%。它根據(jù)土地的給定值征稅，與它是否已經(jīng)得到增值無(wú)關(guān)，與土地是不是已

45、經(jīng)出售無(wú)關(guān)。因此，有別于其他稅種，許多優(yōu)勢(shì)主要體現(xiàn)在它的地理位是否得到許多關(guān)注，尤其是否有獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)措施、公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境與較高的經(jīng)濟(jì)效率。</p><p>　　作為一種在土地出租價(jià)值基礎(chǔ)上的每年必須繳納的稅種，土地增值稅不會(huì)因?yàn)樗欠褶D(zhuǎn)換而得到發(fā)展。綜上所述，這種是否轉(zhuǎn)換的方式不僅與政府政策沒(méi)有沖突，而且也不會(huì)減慢住宅建筑物的增長(zhǎng)比率，它可以通過(guò)當(dāng)?shù)卣峁┑莫?jiǎng)勵(lì)來(lái)積極地促進(jìn)它的發(fā)展。在市場(chǎng)土地租賃價(jià)格基礎(chǔ)上的每年必須繳

46、納的稅種，在征收過(guò)程中不管土地是否使用或者得到了增值，進(jìn)而會(huì)進(jìn)一步提高布朗菲爾德土地的再利用價(jià)值。因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)空置的地盤(pán)最終仍會(huì)帶來(lái)每年的收入。確實(shí)，關(guān)于這方面的爭(zhēng)論有很多，可能每種爭(zhēng)論都會(huì)促使形成更多可持續(xù)發(fā)展的模式，例如通過(guò)鼓勵(lì)經(jīng)濟(jì)不是很繁榮地區(qū)商業(yè)的發(fā)展，因?yàn)楫?dāng)?shù)氐耐恋厥袌?chǎng)價(jià)格比經(jīng)濟(jì)相對(duì)較繁榮地區(qū)要低。（土地增值稅變革，2002）。</p><p>　　當(dāng)個(gè)人財(cái)富越來(lái)越多投資于公共事業(yè)時(shí)，土地增值稅有利于獲取其

47、中的投資盈利。土地增值稅每年的征收比率是固定的，稅收將隨著土地市場(chǎng)價(jià)格（即征稅的基礎(chǔ)）的增加而增加。理論上，有關(guān)部門(mén)可以提供一種自動(dòng)計(jì)算的模式，幫助計(jì)算收入中有多少比例的資金流入了國(guó)家的基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)項(xiàng)目。</p><p>　　下面有一些值得重視的注意事項(xiàng),土地增值稅形式的改變?cè)诤茉缫郧熬鸵呀?jīng)被嘗試過(guò),根據(jù)表一的大概描述，自第二次世界大戰(zhàn)以來(lái)共有四次較大的嘗試。先前制定的這些稅收政策主要是為了取得在納稅籌劃允許范圍之內(nèi)

48、獲得的收入和土地增值稅改革中獲得的意外所得，從而來(lái)不斷完善自身的體系建設(shè),但是許多將導(dǎo)致它們改革失敗的原因也在不斷增加。許多人抱怨征稅體系過(guò)于復(fù)雜，沒(méi)有給予他們充足的時(shí)間去進(jìn)一步地了解該體系，進(jìn)行合適的納稅籌劃（康奈利奧、利奇菲爾德，2000）。其他人指出開(kāi)發(fā)商和土地?fù)碛姓呖偸窃诘却齺?lái)自政府的機(jī)會(huì)（從勞動(dòng)黨到保守派），在面對(duì)有相當(dāng)廣泛的反對(duì)者組成的團(tuán)體以及國(guó)會(huì)中的反對(duì)勢(shì)力時(shí)（巴克，2003），土地增值稅的反對(duì)者鼓吹稅收政策的改革是不適當(dāng)

49、的。</p><p>　　表格一：過(guò)去關(guān)于英國(guó)土地增值稅不同形式的例子</p><p>　　來(lái)源:改編自康奈利奧、利奇菲爾德(2000)</p><p>　　確實(shí)，反對(duì)者總是喜歡拿丹麥和新西蘭作為例子，因?yàn)槟抢锏耐恋卦鲋刀愒?jīng)在19世紀(jì)已經(jīng)得到實(shí)施并且形成了較徹底的征稅方案。但是，目前兩個(gè)國(guó)家卻都逐步消除了他們國(guó)家土地增值稅的主要形式，保留了較少部分的財(cái)產(chǎn)稅（亨利喬

50、治，2000）。盡管如此，這對(duì)英國(guó)在土地增值稅改革上面臨的挫折的影響不會(huì)很大，許多其他國(guó)家將土地增值稅的形式作為他們財(cái)政體系的一部分，就像南非、加勒比海的一些州和加拿大西部的大部分地區(qū)，香港和新加坡的絕大部分地區(qū)在經(jīng)營(yíng)體系的建設(shè)上與上面幾個(gè)國(guó)家稍微存在一些不同，特別是因?yàn)檫@些國(guó)家的土地是公家所有的，所以租金流入就直接進(jìn)入了國(guó)家財(cái)政。</p><p>　　激進(jìn)的改革而不是突然的改革</p><p

51、>　　所有這些爭(zhēng)論都直指是否有必要對(duì)英國(guó)的財(cái)產(chǎn)稅進(jìn)行改革，對(duì)房子的重新估價(jià)和對(duì)收益增加部分的補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明不會(huì)阻止這些問(wèn)題的再次產(chǎn)生。但是激進(jìn)的改革并不等同于突然的改革，政策和后勤的保障使土地增值稅改革變成了一個(gè)遙遠(yuǎn)的目標(biāo)，為了達(dá)到土地增值稅的改革目標(biāo)，我們必須事先計(jì)劃好實(shí)施的方案。</p><p>　　首先，目前的小修小補(bǔ)必須被公開(kāi)地承認(rèn)是一個(gè)跳板，而不是終極目標(biāo)。只要把握好它期望達(dá)到的大方向，政府部門(mén)有能力應(yīng)

52、對(duì)那些來(lái)自于學(xué)者和專(zhuān)業(yè)人士的爭(zhēng)辯。從以前在土地增值稅上的嘗試中可以清楚地看到，建立一個(gè)跨黨派的政治共識(shí)也很重要。公共政策研究所最近的跨黨派可持續(xù)發(fā)展委員會(huì)也正是這樣認(rèn)為：土地增值稅很可能成為實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的有用工具，只要未來(lái)的任何改革都承認(rèn)這兩個(gè)基本因素：第一，新的改革必須是激勵(lì)人的；第二，能夠滿(mǎn)足東南地區(qū)住房需求中的額外資源供給。（東南委員會(huì)，2005:55）</p><p>　　其次，在即將來(lái)臨的改革的細(xì)節(jié)設(shè)

53、計(jì)上，應(yīng)考慮更加長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的目標(biāo)，回歸到本文介紹開(kāi)始所述的問(wèn)題告訴我們什么樣的變化才是必要的。</p><p>　　要建立一個(gè)自動(dòng)穩(wěn)定的住房市場(chǎng)，物業(yè)稅必須更好地滿(mǎn)足不同時(shí)間、不同的地區(qū)和不同物業(yè)，制造一個(gè)每年重新估價(jià)的方法，然后選擇最好的方法實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)。</p><p>　　為了取得從公共基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)投資中獲得的一些私人利益，中央和地方政府的關(guān)系需得到解決。按照前面提到的規(guī)定，這個(gè)多年來(lái)的問(wèn)題是

54、不可能從里昂調(diào)查局的出版物中得到解決，這實(shí)際上可能是件好事。這似乎更明智的是從當(dāng)?shù)卣?fù)責(zé)什么問(wèn)題開(kāi)始，然后應(yīng)該怎樣融資，而不是從里昂發(fā)生的政治滅火事件開(kāi)始。當(dāng)一個(gè)地方當(dāng)局正在鼓勵(lì)提出要在住房增長(zhǎng)和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)中發(fā)揮重要作用時(shí)，他們采取的財(cái)政機(jī)制是非常明智的，重新評(píng)估并確定均衡撥款的方式可以更好地反映當(dāng)?shù)卣乃每此坪侠怼?lt;/p><p>　　由巴克（2004）提出的收益增補(bǔ)計(jì)劃可能會(huì)被政府采納，，價(jià)值的增加有些來(lái)

55、自公共行為，而不是私人行為，確立的那些原則必須是清晰的。收益增補(bǔ)計(jì)劃應(yīng)該被當(dāng)作一個(gè)“楔子問(wèn)題”，擴(kuò)大這想法被接受的空間，并使其更容易更廣泛得被接受。因此政府應(yīng)該以收益增補(bǔ)計(jì)劃為基礎(chǔ)，貫徹堅(jiān)定和公正的原則，而不是以資金的實(shí)際需要量為基礎(chǔ)。</p><p>　　最后，從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，稅收系統(tǒng)的改變提供了一個(gè)消除印花稅專(zhuān)制的機(jī)會(huì)，只要改變“斯拉得”結(jié)構(gòu)，這樣高稅率就會(huì)只適用于超過(guò)臨界值的額外收益，將不至于給國(guó)庫(kù)強(qiáng)加較大的成

56、本。例如，每一超過(guò)120000美元的房子將少交稅款1200美元,每一超過(guò)250000美元的房子將少交稅款6200美元，每一超過(guò)500000美元的房子將少交稅款11200美元。試圖通過(guò)一個(gè)最高稅率來(lái)恢復(fù)稅收收入的想法在政治上被證明是難以實(shí)現(xiàn)的，特別是勞工已經(jīng)增加了三個(gè)百分點(diǎn)的最高稅率。一個(gè)完整的新系統(tǒng)，像土地增值稅，應(yīng)該提供一個(gè)消除價(jià)格時(shí)時(shí)猛漲并保持財(cái)政的中立的機(jī)會(huì)。</p><p>　　財(cái)產(chǎn)稅的稅制改革似乎沒(méi)有引

57、起政治上的重視，很顯然目前財(cái)產(chǎn)稅還不能公正高效地促進(jìn)政府達(dá)成目標(biāo)。2005是重要的一年，持續(xù)的里昂調(diào)查不應(yīng)該被用來(lái)阻止財(cái)產(chǎn)稅更深刻的改革，這不是在和稅收改革談要求，我們不是什么安德?tīng)柹Q(chēng)之的“極端論者”，我們不相信土地增值稅是“極好的通往社會(huì)主義的道路”。相反，土地增值稅在財(cái)政框架中扮演的重要角色，后面的章節(jié)將提供了一些積極的看法。</p><p><b>　　土地稅能起作用嗎</b><

58、;/p><p>　　自勞安德·喬治以來(lái)，通過(guò)建筑規(guī)劃許可獲得意外收益已經(jīng)有一些失敗的嘗試。關(guān)于英國(guó)稅收體系標(biāo)準(zhǔn)文本，作為作者之一的現(xiàn)任英國(guó)銀行行長(zhǎng)，強(qiáng)調(diào)“底層為尋求經(jīng)濟(jì)地租的稅金保留它的力量”（凱和金，1990,P179）。自1947年以來(lái)，英國(guó)的土地增值稅取決于它的規(guī)劃現(xiàn)狀，如果土地是用于農(nóng)業(yè)規(guī)劃，每公頃價(jià)值幾千英鎊；如果是用于商業(yè)規(guī)劃，每公頃價(jià)值百萬(wàn)英鎊。土地增值稅稅收是有效的（因?yàn)樗粫?huì)扭曲土地發(fā)展的

59、誘因），是公平的（因?yàn)樗鼘⒁恍┙?jīng)濟(jì)租金返還給初創(chuàng)者，也就是地方當(dāng)局和當(dāng)?shù)鼐用瘢?。正如凱和金解釋的：假如規(guī)劃許可增加從5000美元到1百萬(wàn)美元的土地價(jià)值獎(jiǎng)，那么，即使所產(chǎn)生的收益是90%的課稅，發(fā)展仍然是比將土地用于建筑房屋而不是用于農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展收益100000美元要好，這一強(qiáng)大的動(dòng)力使項(xiàng)目進(jìn)展順利。</p><p>　　有以下幾種主要的反對(duì)意見(jiàn)：預(yù)期不會(huì)永久和評(píng)估費(fèi)用問(wèn)題。財(cái)產(chǎn)收益一直被看作是土地稅過(guò)去的嘗試，這不僅

60、發(fā)生在1909年1914年，巴克（2003，專(zhuān)欄7.3）指出，這同樣發(fā)生在1947年、1967年、1974年和1985年，在每一個(gè)時(shí)期，都得到成功實(shí)踐。這一推論的得出不是巴克的土地增值稅是不能實(shí)踐的，任何稅收的征繳應(yīng)該是基于資本價(jià)值而不是交易所得。</p><p>　　第二個(gè)反對(duì)土地增值稅的意見(jiàn)認(rèn)為土地的評(píng)估過(guò)程很困難，這看起來(lái)問(wèn)題不大，營(yíng)業(yè)稅和議會(huì)稅同樣面臨這一困難，土地增值稅能夠全部或部分取代這兩種稅，這些稅

61、種都與評(píng)估的時(shí)間有關(guān)。1991年議會(huì)稅由房屋的價(jià)值決定，接下來(lái)的英國(guó)議會(huì)稅改革是在2007年，開(kāi)始了政黨間的相互抨擊。2005年在威爾士的重新估價(jià)使很多房屋的相對(duì)價(jià)值上漲，這激怒了威爾士的納稅人，但卻有利地?cái)U(kuò)充了稅基。在2005年的大選中，保守黨承諾推遲2007年的重估計(jì)劃，這看起來(lái)比自由民主黨對(duì)土地增值稅改革的短期承諾更不可靠。</p><p>　　為統(tǒng)一的交易稅重新估價(jià)設(shè)定稅基只有每五年一次，評(píng)估的時(shí)間拖得越

62、久，被評(píng)估資產(chǎn)的相對(duì)增值越會(huì)阻礙資產(chǎn)的重新評(píng)估進(jìn)程，這就是在19世紀(jì)80年代反對(duì)等級(jí)評(píng)估導(dǎo)致稅收民意調(diào)查的一個(gè)災(zāi)難。</p><p>　　每年都有足夠的房屋轉(zhuǎn)手，每年都可以對(duì)房屋的資本價(jià)值進(jìn)行計(jì)算，地產(chǎn)代理將其作為他們的日常業(yè)務(wù)。因此，沒(méi)有理由一個(gè)公共部門(mén)的評(píng)估師無(wú)法做到現(xiàn)有的評(píng)估服務(wù)和后續(xù)的事務(wù)。商業(yè)和工業(yè)物業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)手次數(shù)較少，所以對(duì)土地的每年的評(píng)估可能不可行，但這并不是不可逾越的，最壞的情況下政府同樣可以繼續(xù)每

63、5年一次的價(jià)值評(píng)估，不管房屋是否已經(jīng)出售。一個(gè)很好的協(xié)議細(xì)致的工作將需要以正確的計(jì)稅依據(jù)計(jì)算時(shí)，土地是出租的而不是出售（任何土地增值稅的預(yù)期是激勵(lì)業(yè)主進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)讓或銷(xiāo)售而不是永久持有）。因此，土地增值稅不是未來(lái)的選擇，但是它可能是2009年人民百年財(cái)政預(yù)算的一個(gè)具有吸引力的選擇。國(guó)家土地及物業(yè)已被建成名錄，數(shù)據(jù)資料來(lái)源于全國(guó)地形測(cè)量、英國(guó)皇家郵政、地方和中央政府。在英國(guó)原則上可以辨別繼承財(cái)產(chǎn)的應(yīng)納稅款，因?yàn)樗男畔⒅皇歉胤接嘘P(guān)，跟人無(wú)

64、關(guān)。</p><p>　　第三種反對(duì)意見(jiàn)認(rèn)為，目前政治上的突出問(wèn)題是任何財(cái)產(chǎn)稅包括土地增值稅表現(xiàn)出的“資產(chǎn)豐富，現(xiàn)金不足”，這種現(xiàn)象被稱(chēng)為“德文郡退休”特征。一個(gè)穩(wěn)健的回答是，德文郡的退休老人應(yīng)該面對(duì)繼續(xù)住在大房子的機(jī)會(huì)成本，他們有權(quán)選擇出租或降級(jí)居住到更小的房子；一個(gè)較軟的回答是當(dāng)業(yè)主一時(shí)無(wú)法支付或當(dāng)房屋已經(jīng)出售款項(xiàng)未收到時(shí)，完全保有住宅的納稅義務(wù)可以延遲，地方當(dāng)局能夠借到被拖欠的債務(wù)，現(xiàn)金流將不會(huì)受到很大影響