Critics Assail Bill to Impose Rental Tax
By JIM HICKEY
A new bill authored by Cape Cod lawmakers that would extend a 9.75 per cent lodging tax currently in place for hotels to weekly rentals has already stoked opposition both here and across the state, primarily among real estate brokers and people who rent their homes during the summer months for extra income.
But the bill, sponsored by Reps. Cleon H. Turner of Dennis and Sarah K. Peake of Barnstable, also has found supporters, due largely to its potential to generate income for cities and towns across the state. The bill would expand the current tax on transient properties like hotels, motels and bed and breakfasts, to include short-term home and condominium rentals less than 90 days.
The tax would be a local option requiring town meeting vote for approval.
Under the proposal, 5.7 per cent of the revenue collected would go to the state and the remaining 4 per cent would go the town where the rental is located. Some towns on Cape Cod, including Provincetown and Brewster, have already begun home rule petitions to enlist the permission of the legislature to enact the tax.
Eastham, Chatham, Yarmouth and Harwich are expected to at least discuss the tax at their annual spring town meetings.
As of this week, none of the six Island towns have discussed the lodging tax or were planning to discuss it at their annual town meetings. However, many real estate brokers have been following the bill since it was filed last month, and have already formed a united front of opposition.
“This is rushed and not well thought out,” said Anne Mayhew, rental manager for Sandpiper Realty in Edgartown. “In this economy, many rental properties still aren’t fully booked for the summer, and there are a lot of people out there thinking long and hard about their expenses . . . a 10 per cent increase in what they pay [for weekly rentals] is by no means a small amount,” she said, adding:
“People may simply go somewhere else. Or if they do come here, they may spend less in the stores and restaurants.”
Joan Talmadge, co-owner of the Web site WeNeedaVacation.com, that matches vacationers with rental properties, said the legislation could have an unintended impact on the long-term economy of towns. Because the tax would be a local option, some towns could adopt it while other choose not to.
And towns that choose not to adopt it would have a marked disadvantage over those who did, she said.
Mrs. Talmadge said some homeowners may choose not to impose the tax, and instead hide the fact they are renting their homes. This too could create tension between those who report the income and those who do not, she said. “It could foster negativity and perhaps conflict among neighbors. If one person is doing the right thing and their neighbor isn’t do the right thing, it could quickly become a problem,” she said.
Mrs. Talmadge also suggested the legislation could hurt tourism and real estate sales. She said recent demand for housing on the Cape and Islands is spurred by second homeowners, who often choose to retire here. But the investments are often based on finances, and an additional cost might alter those investment decisions. She estimated that a rental increase of 9.75 per cent to cover the lodgin g tax would cost vacationers an additional $250 to $500 a week, based on a rental fee of $2,500 to $5,000 a week.
Glenn Ritt, editor and co-publisher of Cape Business magazine, said imposing room taxes on those who rent their homes in the summer could actually lead to lower home prices and less property tax revenues for towns. “That’s because many second-home owners already are strapped to keep their residences here — and a room tax could be the proverbial last straw,” he said.
But Donald Muckerheide, a Vineyard resident and longtime proponent of more stringent regulations for weekly rentals, strongly disagreed.
Although he was not ready to take a position on the proposed legislation, Mr. Muckerheide said he supports some type of tax for weekly rentals. He said the high cost of housing on the Vineyard is largely driven by people who rent their homes on a weekly basis, which he equated to illegal, uncontrolled and untaxed commercial use of residential properties.
“Homes on the Vineyard are valued not only on their worth as residential units, but for their potential as weekly rentals. It drives up the cost of the entire housing market, and makes it impossible for working class people to afford a home on the Vineyard,” he said.
Mr. Muckerheide said weekly rentals in residentially zoned neighborhood are unregulated, while a resident in the same zone who wants to have a small home business must meet additional regulations, pay higher taxes and go through a permitting process. He said imposing some type of tax on weekly rentals would level the playing field for hotels, home businesses and weekly rentals — while also generating needed income for cash-strapped towns.
“This is something that should have been seriously looked at years ago. But the powers that be have ignored it,” he said.
Representative Turner, who sponsored a similar piece of legislation in 2007 that went to committee but never saw a vote on the House floor, said this week he is optimistic.
“At the very least I think it will be discussed more this time around . . . the state needs money and the towns need money,” he said.
He noted that other states, including Florida and Maine, already have a weekly rental tax, which has not hurt tourism or the economy. He said the tax would be a viable source of income at a time when most towns are struggling financially. “It is not intended to hurt anyone [who is renting their home], it is to help towns struggling to keep employees and pay their bills,” he said.
Cape and Islands Rep. Tim Madden said he liked some of the ideas in the legislation, but said he would have to study the plan and talk with more people before he fully supports it. He said he would like to see a provision that would allow towns to opt out of the tax.
“If towns like the idea, they can vote to impose the tax. If they don’t think it’s working, they should be able to get out of it,” Mr. Madden said.
Island elected officials contacted this week appeared tentative about supporting the legislation.
Tisbury selectman Tristan Israel said he knew little about the bill, but said on first blush the 9.75 per cent tax seemed high.
“It might be worth talking about. But on the other hand a [9.75 per cent] increase in rentals is a lot of money. We don’t want to scare people off,” Mr. Israel said.
Ron DiOrio, chairman of the Oak Bluffs selectmen, took a similar view.
“The way things are going right now, we should consider anything that will put money in the town coffers,” he said.
» Share Your Feedback
Reader Feedback
Friday, February 20, 2009 11:37am
The assertion that imposing the hotel lodging tax on owners of weekly vacation rentals has not hurt tourism or the economy in Maine is false. Maine has a third world economy because of its high taxes and controls, which are among the worst in the nation. Both property owners and tourists are being hurt by this.
We and many others stopped renting our property in downeast Maine to vacationers in 2005 when the state began imposing the 7% hotel lodging tax and state registration on what had previously been exempt personal property. It takes an enormous amount of effort and responsibility to rent your own home to the public, and the taxes and bureaucratic intrusion were simply not worth it, especially for a low volume operation that mostly just helped to pay expenses -- including the high property taxes. We were very sad to have to stop, and so are the vacationers who no longer have what they otherwise could have (http://moosecove.com).
The "sales" tax is not a tax on tourists, it is a legal imposition on the owner of the property who must pay for it any way he can. For discretionary spending like vacations one cannot simply "pass on" the extra cost by raising the total price to the vacationer because market prices cannot be arbitrarily raised to cover "costs" without affecting volume, leading to unrented weeks. Anyone who has tried to determine a reasonable price to charge knows this. Vacationers look at the total cost to themselves, including what is called "added tax" on top of an advertised price. This causes the base price to be lower than it otherwise would have been and the "sales" tax turns out to be an income tax on gross receipts.
The tax also subjects private individuals to state bureaucracy, making more people subject to the broad discretionary powers of bureaucrats with the authority to "estimate" sales taxes and impose taxes and penalties whether you are renting or not simply because some suspicious bureaucrat claims you are. Normal Constitutional protection of civil rights does not apply because the victims are required under state tax law to prove their innocence to the satisfaction of the bureaucrats. Proving a negative is a logical impossibility because things that don't happen don't leave traces behind as evidence of their non-existence, so you are left at the mercy of belligerent bureaucrats who pursuing their agency "mission".
Several of us who stopped the vacation rentals or never did it have been harassed and bullied for years under this scheme with demands for tens of thousands of dollars in bogus taxes and penalties and threats to seize our property. The legal costs against a rigged system like this are horrendous and most victims simply give up and pay off the demands. Once ensnared in this scheme people become desperate but there is no where to turn for help against the abuse. See http://MaineTaxAbuse.org.
The proposal in the name of "generating income" to impose a new tax on home owners who rent their property for vacations should be recognized as the latest tax grab scheme that it is and rejected. And especially, no one should be emulating the third world government of Maine as any kind of example to follow.
- Erich , Concord
Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:57am
A 9.75% tax on a $1,000 weekly rental would amount to $97.50. That is a lot of money. Also, how would this proposed tax affect people who rent out their homes to winter tenants?
- Christine , Waltham
Monday, February 23, 2009 5:21am
Citizens of Mass, why did you let the opportunity to eliminate the State income tax slip out of your hands, this state and government will tax you at every chance, what an opportunity, why are we not sending this message to out legislators, is this not the state where the Boston Tea Party occurred?? Get with it, you are getting what you sked for - "MORE TAXES" and you watch Income Tax go UP TOO!
- Joe Corbo , Aquinnah
Monday, February 23, 2009 12:10pm
Blah, Blah, Blah, Just more narrow minded blather from ignorant, lazy people who couldn't be bothered to take responsability for the wear and tear that the primarily car on ferry delivered weekly vacation renters cause to this island.
I think the Hotels and Inns should sue the home owners on Martha's Vineyard that rent their homes to weekly vacationers under the equal protection clause and force those home owners to pay back taxes for the penalty of skirting their responsability to maintain the roads, bridges and services that the vacationers cause the most wear and tear of.
Grow up people, If you don't like paying taxes I'm sure theres a third world nation some where that would love to take you in.
- Lloyd Hart , Oak Bluffs
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:15pm
The venomous, threatening rhetoric of Lloyd Hart does not belong on this site and makes no sense for who is already paying for what. But it does serve to reveal the seething hatred of progressive left activists like Hart who want higher taxes and to use government power through retroactive, non-objective law (under the guise of the "equal protection" of all things) to destroy the hardworking middle class that has responsibly followed the rules and paid more than its share, over and over. Decent people are fed up with these activists and the kind of bullying government they support.
- ewv , Concord
Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:32am
Mr. Haart; do not include me in your group of weekly vacationers..i have been coming to the island since 1978 and take great pride in spending my hard earned money while there. i have even donated to various charties both while vacationing, and by mail when home.I`m most proud that i have never ridden a moped on the island..and when driving, we have had more than one passenger.I also give generously to the oakbuffs fire dept when there to enjoy the fantastic firework display which is a treat and a half. I suggest a samll charge be included in resturants,shops be added to be used in fixing the roads, bridges..and remember if not for the summer folks...where would many of you be then?
- bruce koehler , grovers corners
Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:16am
It is stated in the article..."The tax would be a local option requiring town meeting vote for approval." .... Our State Rep, Tim Madden said he liked some of the ideas in the legislation, but said he would have to study the plan and talk with more people before he fully supports it. He said he would like to see a provision that would allow towns to opt out of the tax.
“If towns like the idea, they can vote to impose the tax. If they don’t think it’s working, they should be able to get out of it,” Mr. Madden said.
I am sick and tired of this kind of wishy washy, fence sitting response from elected officials. Mr. Madden appears unable to take a stand or even show that he has studied or understands the legislation before him. The bill already includes a local option requiring town approval.
Representative Madden, could we hear something we don't already know!
- M.V. , Falmouth
© 2010 Vineyard Gazette