2. Materials and Methods
2.3 Protein analysis
A comparison guided by the property tax law provisions of UN-HABITAT was done between the Land Use Charge Laws of Enugu, Edo and Lagos States (one state from South East, South South and South West) and Anambra State(APLUC) to expose their similarities and differences. They are shown on Table 6.
Total Components
Not Included
Components Included
State
UN_HABITAT
N 0 25 25
Row % 0% 100% 100%
Anambra
N 9 16 25
Row % 36% 64% 100%
Total
N 9 41 50
Row % 18% 82% 100%
118 Table 6: Comparison of Property Tax Laws of Enugu , Edo and Lagos with APLUC S/N
Provisions Anambra Enugu Edo Lagos 1.
Effective date of property tax 1 1 1 1
2. Heads of tax 1 0 0 1
3. Level of government to administer the tax 1 1 1 1
4. Tax base 1 1 1 1
5. Property types identification and definition 0 0 0 0 6. Interpretation of key concepts and terms 1 1 1 1
7. Exemptions 1 1 1 1
8. Tax payer 1 1 1 1
9. Stipulation of government entity responsible for tax rate setting
0 0 0 0
10. Stating of tax rates 0 0 1 0
11. Definition and stipulation of value of standard
0 1 0 1
12. Skills and training of tax assessors 0 0 1 0
13. Definition of cycle for updating taxable values
0 0 0 0
14 Agency responsible for generating and delivery of tax bills
1 1 1 1
15 When tax bills are to be sent out and when tax is due
1 1 1 1
16 Stipulation of what constitutes notification of taxpayers
1 1 1 1
17 Agency responsible for maintenance of fiscal cadastre
0 0 0 0
18 Agency responsible for collection of tax payments
1 1 1 1
19 Agency responsible for responding to taxpayers questions and concerns
0 0 0 0
20 Process for handling appeals 1 1 1 1
21 Profession and qualification of members of appeal panel
0 0 0 0
22 Description of process of assessment appeals 1 1 1 1
119
23 Conditions of appeal 1 1 1 1
24 Sanctions and penalties for non-payment of tax
1 1 1 1
25 Sharing pattern of revenue 1 1 1 1
Total 16 16 17 17
Key: 1 = Component Included; 0 = Component not included
The property tax laws are similar in almost all respects except the following:
1) Heads of Tax: Only Anambra and Lagos States identified and named the land based taxes the law seeks to consolidate.
2) Tax Rates: In section 6(2) under schedule, only the Edo State Land Use Charge Law stated the tax rates which will be applied to the assessed values to get the tax payable on taxable properties.
3) Definition and Stipulation of Standard of Value: The Lagos and Enugu States Property Tax Laws, Sections 5 and 7 respectively provided statutory formulae for the assessment of the property tax while Anambra and Edo States Tax Laws did not provide the basis of assessment of the property tax.
4) Skills and Training of Tax Assessors: Only Edo State property tax law provided for the skills and training of tax assessors. Section 5(1&2) specified that the Estate Surveyors and Valuers who are the professionals in property tax assessment should undertake the
assessment of chargeable properties. Anambra and Lagos States property tax laws left tax assessment in the hands of the Commissioner of Finance, while Enugu State tax law left it with the Commissioner for Lands and Urban Development .
In terms of quality, the Edo State Land Use Charge Law can be said to be the best of the four property tax laws, it named estate surveyors and valuers as the expert tax assessors. In section 9, it exempted owner-occupier residential properties measuring 100ft by 100ft maximum in non choice area of urban area and rural areas, owner- occupiers of over- sixty (60) years and
120 family compounds. This means that the rural people are exempted and this gesture is more in line with the principle of equity.
A cross tabulation analysis of the Property Tax Laws with UN-HABITAT is shown on Table 7 below.
Table 7: Cross Tabulation of the Comparison of Provisions of the States Property Tax Law with UN-HABITAT.(Cross tabulation)
Total Components
Not Included
Components Included
State
Anambra
N 9 16 25
Row % 36% 64% 100%
Edo
N 8 17 25
Row % 32% 68% 100%
Enugu
N 8 17 25
Row % 32% 68% 100%
Lagos
N 8 17 25
Row % 32% 68% 100%
Total
N 33 67 100
Row % 33% 67% 100.0%
Table 7 above shows that Anambra Property Tax Law (APLUC) has a number of 16(64%) of the components included in the law while 9 items (36%) were not included. Edo State Land Use Charge Law included 17(68%) while 8(32%) were left out. Enugu State Property Tax Law has 17 (68%) components included and 8(32%) not included; and lastly, Lagos State included 17 (68%) and excluded 8 (32%). This shows that the property tax laws of Edo, Enugu and Lagos States have similar features with that of APLUC but fall short of the UN-HABITAT provisions.
121 4.4 Section B: Analyses of Responses of the Questionnaire
The analysis of how the questionnaire is distributed and returned is presented in Table 8:
Table 8: Analysis of the Distribution and Return of Questionnaire Sample Questionnaire
Subgroups Distributed
Estate 42
Questionnaire Returned 35
Percentage of Total returned 83.33 Surveyors
Property Owners Global Mckens
Total
400
18
460
358 18
411
80.99 100 89.34
Table 8 above reveals that a total of 460 copies of questionnaire classified for Estate Surveyors and Valuers and Property Owners and the Global Mckens (Tax Administrators) were distributed as indicated in the table. The table equally indicated that a total of 411 copies out of the 460 questionnaires were correctly filled and returned. This represents 89.34% of the administered questionnaires which is statistically high to justify reliance on it for the analysis.
122 4.5 Demographic Analysis of Estate Surveyors and Valuers
The grade of the Estate Surveyors and Valuers used in the research is shown below:
Table 9: Respondents' Grade
Frequency Percentage
fellow 4 11.4
associate 31 88.5
Total 35 100.0
Table 9, shows that 31 representing 88.5% of the 35 Estate Surveyors and Valuers sampled were Associates while four (11.4%) were Fellows of the Association. The implication is that Estate Surveyors and Valuers in the sample population are registered and recognized professionally to give reliable responses.
It went further to find out the level of experience of the Estate Surveyors and Valuers used for the study.
Table 10: Respondents’ Years of Practice
Frequencies and percentages presented in table 10 indicate that greater proportion of the respondents 21(60.0%) have had between 6 -10 years of practice. Four respondents representing 11.4% have been in practice for 10 years and above while 10 (28.5%) have been in practice between 1 -5 years. The implication of the result of the above analysis is the
Frequency Percentage
1-5years 10 28.6
6-10 years 21 60.0
10 years and above
4 11.4
Total 35 100.0
123 revelation that almost all the Estate Surveyors and Valuers sampled are sufficiently experienced in practice to be relied upon on issues of valuation.
The analysis of the involvement of Estate Surveyors and Valuers in the assessment of APLUC is shown below:
Table 11: Involvement in Valuation for APLUC Frequency Percentage
Yes 3 8.6
No 32 91.4
Total 35 100.0
In terms of involvement in valuation for APLUC, majority of the respondents have not done valuation for APLUC as shown by 32 (91.4%) of the respondents that endorsed "No"
whereas only 3 respondents, representing 8.6% of the total respondents indicated that they have done valuation for APLUC. This shows that Estate Surveyors and Valuers are not fully involved in the assessment of the property tax.