taxes & financing | Cat Foreheads & Rabbit Hutches

Fixed values

As anyone who regularly reads this blog knows, we have issues with the Japanese media’s coverage of real estate prices, since they almost exclusively cover Tokyo. For sure, Tokyo properties mean a lot in the scheme of things, but Tokyo real estate is exceptional in the sense that the city still charts growth while the rest of Japan doesn’t; or, at least, not at the exceptional rate that Tokyo does. Consequently, the huge increases in property values that Tokyo is now seeing don’t really represent Japan, something the media neglects to point out. What you get in the mainstream press when it comes to coverage of real estate is skyrocketing condo prices in Tokyo and akiya—vacant properties—everywhere else, and nothing much in between. So we were intrigued by a recent series in the Asahi Shimbun about how the government assesses property values, since they do it all over Japan. Though the articles don’t explain anything about national trends in property values, they imply that one of the reasons for the lopsided coverage mentioned above is that it’s difficult to trust any related statistics released by the government.

The series was prefaced by an article about an announcement from the municipal government of Chofu, Tokyo, that its assessments for property taxes and so-called city planning taxes were incorrect in 166 cases; specifically, for 88 properties the assessments overestimated their value while for 78 the assessments underestimated their value. The amount of refunds due for the overestimates comes to ¥80.95 million, while the additional imposition of taxes for the underestimated assessments add up to ¥52.61 million.

The mistakes mostly had to do with how land was categorized. For instance, property taxes for land categorized as residential can be reduced by five-sixths if it contains a structure of some kind. Other variables include additional structure, additions to the main structure, and demolition work, all of which would require that the land be reassessed. Apparently, Chofu has yet to determine exactly how they got it wrong, but in any case, according to the law if an assessment is found to be too low, the municipality can demand compensation no more than five years after the original assessment. But if an assessment is too big, then there is no time limit for compensating the property owner.

Obviously, land value assessment is a tricky business that’s open to a lot of subjective factors, so in its Keizai Plus section, Asahi followed up the Chofu item by looking into the broader “mystery” surrounding the land ministry’s public real estate assessments, which are carried out every year for 26,000 locations throughout the country. Two appraisers are assigned to each location, with each one making their own separate assessment, and if there are discrepancies, the ministry mediates. The “correct” valuations are then published on the ministry’s home page.

It sounds simple enough, but when Asahi checked the original valuations of the paired assessors using AI, they found that in 69 percent of the locations assessed, the two appraisals matched exactly, and in the remaining cases the difference was “within 1 percent.” The location with the highest assessment for residential land is Akasaka in Tokyo, and the assessors’ valuations have matched exactly for the last five years. The prefecture with the highest matching rate was Tokushima at 97 percent. Asahi’s initial reaction was that if the valuations are so predictable, then why do they cost so much? The ministry spends ¥4 billion a year on assessments.

A pox on your tax

Posted on April 28 by catforehead

The current income tax deduction on housing loans will expire at the end of this year, but, as in the past, it will probably be renewed in some form. The tax deduction was first implemented in 1972 and has been revised repeatedly ever since. The current deduction, revised in 2022, cut the rate from 1.0 to 0.7 percent of the balance of the loan in a given year for up to 13 years. Originally, the deduction was 1 percent of the entire price of the house for up to 3 years, and has fluctuated rather liberally over time, depending on how desperately the government wanted to use home sales as an economic stimulus measure.

That’s why the reason the deduction will likely be renewed again isn’t just that it’s become an expected feature of home ownership. On April 21, the welfare ministry announced the results of a survey of people who bought homes between 2022 and 2025. Twenty-one percent of the 8,400 respondents said that if there had been no tax deduction on housing loans they wouldn’t have purchased a home. Kyodo says that this survey will be used to decide on whether to extend the deduction after this year, with the implication that it will be. Among respondents, only 20 percent said that the housing loan tax deduction had “no influence” over their decision to buy a home.

Higher income buyers have lost something over time. Currently, anyone making more than ¥20 million a year is ineligible for the deduction, though the ceiling used to be ¥30 million. The carryover has also been decreased. If the amount of the tax deduction turns out to be more than the income tax owed the government, the excess can be applied to local taxes, but only up to ¥97,500. The maximum used to be ¥136,500.

The housing loan tax deduction has always been controversial, and not just in Japan, because it’s basically discriminatory. Why should people who can afford to buy a home get a special break on their taxes? The ostensible reason is to promote home ownership, which is generally assumed to be a good thing for society, but it ignores the situation of renters. Landlords in Japan do not get a deduction when they buy property because it only applies to people who purchase a home they will live in, but landlords undoubtedly pass the cost of all the taxes they pay on to their tenants, so landlords always have a means of handling tax issues. They don’t need a deduction. The only purpose of the deduction for homeowners is to encourage sales, which helps the real estate and construction industries, not to mention the banks that provide the housing loans.

Not buying it

Posted on March 23 by catforehead

The home ownership rate in Japan has stayed around 60 percent for the past five decades, a bit less than the world average. However, according to the Paris-based global market research company, IPSOS, that rate may be dropping in the near future.

Recently, IPSOS conducted a survey of 22,000 people in 30 countries and found that the “desire” for home ownership was the lowest in Japan. About 42 percent of the Japanese people surveyed who do not presently own homes said they were planning to buy a home in the future. The average among the 30 countries was 71 percent, with the U.S. at 68 percent and Germany just above Japan at 48 percent.

Of the reasons given for not planning to buy a home, the most common among Japanese respondents was high taxes, mentioned by 52 percent. The world average of people saying that high taxes was a reason for not buying a home was 28 percent. Italy was closest to Japan at 42 percent. The second most cited disincentive in Japan was the high price of property.

Broken down further, 68 percent of the Japanese respondents said they wanted to buy a home but didn’t think they would be able to afford it. About the same percentage of Germans and Australians said the same thing. Of course, the real question here is how many people do not even want to buy a home, which would tell us more about people’s attitude toward investing for the future. As we’ve said in this blog many times, outside of the main big cities, one’s home is not an investment in terms of getting anything back from it in the long run, so while home ownership does have advantages over renting, mainly that it gives one a guaranteed place to live, in terms of money spent there may not be enough of a difference, something more people may be realizing these days.

Coincidentally or not, the land ministry also conducted a survey in late 2023 whose results were reported in the housing magazine Suumo in February. The ministry surveyed 72,000 heads of household nationwide covering all ages and incomes, with 72.4 percent of respondents owners of their homes and 27.6 percent renters.

In terms of satisfaction, 79 percent of the homeowners said they were satisfied with their present situation, while 74 percent of renters said the same thing. However, when asked about the future, the results were startling. To the question, “If you were to move again, which would you prefer: owning or renting?” Only 33 percent of both categories said they wanted to own while 49 percent said they wanted to rent. According to Suumo, this is a huge change since 2003, when the land ministry conducted a similar survey. Almost all the respondents in that survey said they preferred to own. Broken down a bit further, most of the owners and renters who said they wanted to own their next abode said they would prefer a new home, but there was a notable increase over previous surveys in respondents who said they would be fine buying a used home.

One reason for the presumed high portion of homeowners who said they would rent if they moved is the fact that almost half the heads-of-household surveyed were over 64, meaning they have likely lived in the same place their entire homeowning lives and probably think they don’t need to purchase another one in their old age. One stone cold statistic that’s always been true of Japanese housing is that the older the cohort, the higher the home ownership rate, so the real question is, how do today’s home ownership rates among people still in their so-called productive years compare to those in the past? The IPSOS survey would seem to indicate that it’s not as much and will continue to decline.

Time bombs

Posted on March 3 by catforehead

For years we have been writing about the future of Japan’s condominiums, which is dire. Though condos continue to sell relatively well in Japan, especially in Tokyo where prices for new ones continue to break records, evidence is ever mounting that the life spans of the buildings themselves are more limited than most people previously thought, if, in fact, they thought of it at all. And while much of this problem is demographic in nature—Japan’s declining population is certainly a factor—the real culprit is everyday economics. The cost of maintaining the buildings so that they will be attractive to future buyers is usually too much for the people who do buy them, and so they aren’t kept up.

Now the Japanese media is finally coming around to this realization in a concerted way, as exemplified by the Japan Times, for which we once wrote a monthly housing column, running a feature about the difficulties being faced by condo owners as their properties slowly fall apart. Soon, they will be abandoned in increasing numbers, just like millions of single-family houses throughout Japan. However, the best coverage of this phenomenon we’ve seen so far was a multi-part series in the Asahi Shimbun about “shukatsu mansion,” with “mansion” being the foreign loan word used for condominiums as promoted by the real estate industry, and “shukatsu” an in-vogue word at the moment representing the increasingly valid idea of the importance of end-of-life planning. In other words, owners of older condominiums are facing the fact that they will be the last owners of their units, because not only will no one want to buy them, but they may not even be inhabitable.

The Asahi refers to these condos as “time bombs,” and while most are forty years old, a few are newer. One article focuses on a 19-unit, 30-year-old building in Kawasaki that’s a 15-minute walk from a station on the Odakyu Line. The design is terrace-style, which was popular in the 1990s and costs more to maintain and repair than conventional apartment buildings. The original buyers carried out large-scale repair work using funds from their saved shuzenhi (repair fee) contributions in the past, and the present owners say they need to do it again. One member of the homeowners association (HOA) told Asahi that they are thinking of “rebuilding” the whole thing, meaning they would tear down the present building and then construct a new one, hopefully with extra units whose sale can offset some of the rebuilding cost for present owners. However, when they hired a consultant to estimate how much such a rebuilding would cost each owner, they were shocked with the answer: ¥47.4 million. The average age of the present owners is somewhere in the 60s, meaning many are living on fixed incomes, which would make it not only impractical to spend that kind of money but impossible. The main problem is the capacity rate, meaning the amount of condo floor area that can be built in relation to the amount of land the building occupies. When the condo was originally built, it took up the maximum capacity allowed, and the local government has not changed regulations since then (many other local governments have done so in recent years in order to attract more developers). So they can’t add new units to a new building unless they reduce the floor area of all the new units.

Another problem is the 15-minute walk to the station, which in today’s market is considered far. It will become increasingly difficult to sell any of the units to someone who still needs to commute to Tokyo, unless they price the units much lower than what it would cost to build them. Consequently, it will be difficult to get a developer involved in the rebuilding, since there wouldn’t be much profit in it for them.

Do you qualify?

Posted on February 3 by catforehead

Tax season is our least favorite time of the year, and probably yours, too, so we weren’t necessarily inclined to read an article about housing loan income tax deductions that appeared in the Jan. 26 Asahi Shimbun, and not just because we don’t want to be reminded of all the calculations we will have to make and the forms we still have to fill out, but also because we paid off our meager mortgage just a few years ago and so the article has nothing to say to us. But it may have something to say to others.

The article focuses on one particular qualification for a housing loan tax cut, which sounds fairly obvious. You qualify if you bought a residential property to live in and took out a loan to pay for it. The article mentions a realtor who received a phone call from someone who bought a house from them, complaining that they had been refused a tax deduction for their housing loan. As it turned out, the client, who is a salaried employee, had been transferred to another location by his company, and so he decided to rent out the house he bought through the realtor during the indefinite transfer period. The client’s whole family moved with him to his new location. After he submitted the proper form for the housing loan deduction with his tax return, he received a call from the tax office saying that he no longer qualified because he didn’t live in the house for which he took out the loan.

In principle, the deduction covers 0.7 percent of the housing loan balance for a given tax year up to 13 years, a maximum loan amount of ¥50 million, and a maximum tax deduction of ¥4.55 million. The deduction applies to both income tax and local tax, and if the income tax deduction is more than the tax that is actually paid, then the difference is applied to the local tax.

But as the tax office pointed out to the property owner in question, if the person who took out the housing loan is not living in or on the property for which they took out the loan then the deduction does not apply. A tax accountant told the Asahi that the tax office is very strict about this rule since the central government essentially forfeits ¥1 trillion a year in potential tax revenues because of the housing loan tax deduction.

In the case mentioned above, the borrower/owner should have reported rental income after deducting expenses, but apparently many people in the same situation neglect to do that. The client in this case was angry that the realtor did not inform him of this rule when he bought the property, but the realtor didn’t know that the client would be transferred so there was no reason to talk about such things. Nevertheless, there are a number of circumstances under which the housing loan tax deduction does not apply, and realtors should be clear about them. In many cases, homeowners who file for housing loan tax deductions who do not live in the homes themselves are breaking the law. The tax accountant says that in all likelihood, if the tax office finds out that someone is renting out a property that they own without reporting the rental income, the tax office will not only cite the owner for claiming a tax deduction they didn’t qualify for, but will charge a penalty on top of the taxes owed for the unclaimed rental income and the loss of the deduction.

Redevelop this

Posted on November 28, 2024 by catforehead

More high-rise condominium shenanigans. On Nov. 17, Tokyo Shimbun reported on 118 redevelopment projects being carried out with the help of local governments that don’t necessarily benefit people who live in the localities but nevertheless are contributing to the projects through local taxes. The article is based on a Kyodo News survey of local governments that found 90 percent of these entities paid or will pay a total of ¥1.0543 trillion in subsidies to developers and/or construction companies that are working on these projects.

Regional cities rely more on public funds than do large regional capitals, and four of the projects surveyed apparently received more than half their total funding from tax revenues. What makes the situation concerning is that 66 of these projects comprising 19 prefectures are centered on tower condominiums, which by definition are sold to upper income people, mainly as investments. Moreover, Kyodo found through the inspection of publicly available documents that there has been “no real long-term planning” attached to these urban redevelopment projects, meaning they are simply enterprises carried out by developers who want to sell condos in the short term. Local residents will receive no ascertainable benefits from these projects, though they are helping to pay for them. Kyodo calculated that as of the end of fiscal 2023, the 118 projects were costing a total of ¥8.52 trillion to build, with 12.4 percent of the cost of 104 of the projects coming from local governments, which would come to ¥1.0543 in subsidies.

Some projects received more public subsidies than others. A tower condo construction project at the North Exit 1 of Fuji Station in Fuji, Shizuoka Prefecture received 57.7 percent of its funds from public moneys; the Machikata-cho 1 project in Numazu, Shizuoka Prefecture received 56.9 percent of its funding from the local government; and the Yokote Station East Exit 2 project in Yokote, Akita Prefecture received 53.3 percent of its funding from tax revenues.

Tomorrow never knows

Posted on November 25, 2024 by catforehead

There’s a certain information lag that comes with media reporting on larger social phenomena. The whole akiya/vacant housing issue has become big news in Japan over the last decade, but it was a fact of Japanese life well before that. This blog, in fact, which began in 2009, was initially conceived as a means of explaining our belief that Japan would eventually have to face a surplus of housing due to its policy of building and selling new homes without any regard for existing and future housing stock. Akiya had been on the increase well before the media started paying attention, and just now the press is beginning to report on other effects of oversupply, but in the context of the demographic crisis, meaning depopulation.

A recent story in Gendai Business covered a bestseller by Masashi Kawai called Mirai no Nenpyo (Chronology of the Future), which puts into perspective how depopulation will affect the economy with respect to four fields: housing, medical care, local government, and public safety. In terms of housing, Kawai says the main immediate effect will be that houses will become difficult to sell, a situation that is already quite apparent in certain rural suburban areas of Japan. However, Kawai is not just talking about existing or used housing, which has been difficult to sell for a while now, but also new housing. That’s because the prime demographic for new house sales, people in their 30s with families, is shrinking in size so significantly. Statistics can be misleading. Overall, land value has increased in Japan, as well as the demand for new housing, but these two circumstances have been spurred by seniors with money to burn. They buy expensive condominiums in city centers as a means of reducing the inheritance tax burden for their heirs; or these high-end properties are being bought as investments because the buyers believe that real estate is the most stable place to park their money. Consequently, the market as a whole seems primed for growth, but it’s lopsided.

Tomorrow will bring what could be termed the 30-30-30 problem: In 30 years the number of people in their 30s—the prime demographic for new house sales—will have shrunk 30 percent compared to right now. This cohort is already marrying later in life than their parents did, which means if they do buy a home it might not be until they are in their 40s or even later. Right now, the common time frame for housing loans is 30 years, but as the home-buying layer of the population ages, the terms for most mortgages may shorten to 20-25 years, which means the people seeking these loans will likely be faced with higher interest rates and thus be looking for less expensive housing.

Occupy Kyoto

Posted on March 27, 2023 by catforehead

Last week, the Kyoto city assembly passed a regulation to introduce a special tax on unoccupied properties or underutlized second homes for the purpose of opening up the used housing market. Kyoto is experiencing an acute housing shortage that is pushing up prices and, as a result, making the city unaffordable for young families, who are moving out to the surburbs. Before the regulation goes into effect it has to be approved by the internal affairs ministry, and when it does it will be the first such local tax system that targets vacant properties, or akiya, as they’ve come to be called.

The regulation, which wouldn’t be implemented until 2026, targets three categories of empty properties according to appraised value: properties that are less than ¥7 million, those between ¥7 million and ¥9 million, and those that are more than ¥9 million. Each category would entail a different rate of taxation, and if the appraised value is actually less than ¥1 million, no extra tax is imposed for the first five years after the new regulation goes into effect. There are probably very few, if any, properties worth less than ¥1 million in Kyoto, since the appraised value would be for both the structure and the land together. Unoccupied properties includes non-rental condominiums and apartments that are empty. Excluded from the new tax are “historically significant structures,” such as Kyoto’s famous machiya row houses; as well as properties used exclusively for business purposes, rental properties, and empty houses and apartments that the owner plans to put on sale.

According to the Nippon Keizai Shimbun, during the press conference to announce the new tax, the mayor said that the purpose is not to raise revenue, but rather to “improve civic life and stimulate urban renewal.” Apparently, the idea for the tax originated in a proposal for a kind of vacation home property tax, but experts who studied the proposal told the city that it would be better if Kyoto’s large number of unoccupied properties, including vacation homes that seemingly no one was using, were either made available for others to occupy or torn down and replaced by new homes.

In effect, the tax would be levied on any property deemed to be unoccupied or vacant. The special tax would increase the property tax on such a property by about 50 percent, the idea being that owners who didn’t live there or rent them out would be thus encouraged to either sell them or destroy them and build something new or sell the land. Empty land, it should be noted, is taxed at an even higher rate, as much as six times as land which contains a structure, whether vacant or not. It should also be noted that properties that are categorized as residences but which are being used only for storage are not exempt from the tax; as well as properties that are only occupied a few times a year—though exactly how few isn’t clear from media reports so far.

Honeymoon in the danchi

Posted on March 5, 2023 by catforehead

The administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is determined to increase the birth rate—last year it fell below 800,000, 10 years earlier than expected—by any means necessary, even going so far as to suggest raising the consumption tax in order to fund programs that would encourage young people to marry and procreate, which sounds not only desperate but eminently wrong-headed. Another head-scratcher is the proposal to forgive student loans to either spouse or both spouses in a marriage when they produce a child, an idea that opposition lawmakers have found risible for a variety of reasons.

Koichi Hagiuda, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s policy chief, has another idea: Give young couples, regardless of income, priority to enter low-rent public housing. Tokyo Shimbun reports that Hagiuda made the suggestion at a party meeting in Saitama, saying that the first order of business for newleyweds is finding a place to live. The thing is, the central government doesn’t manage housing for the general public. Public housing in Japan is only maintained at the prefectural and municipal levels, so the government would have to get them to agree to the proposal.

The party’s secretary-general, Toshimitsu Motegi, elaborated on the idea by saying that the usual upper income limitations would have to be waived for the proposal to work. He also said that initial estimates indicate such a program would cost about ¥150 billion, most of which would be spent on renovations of public housing. On January 30, Hagiuda explained in the Diet that the current income qualification for public housing applicants—household monthly income should not exceed ¥158,000—would have to be changed for newlyweds, but in any case he said it shouldn’t be a problem since there are 200,000 vacant public housing units nationwide.

Planned Obsolescence

Posted on November 9, 2022 by catforehead

*Variable interest housing loan campaign from early 2020*

With constant talk of a looming worldwide recession, economic news tends to be gloomy, and each country has its own particular problems. Some financial commentators say that Japan’s interest rates remain ridiculously low compared to elsewhere, but no one seems to see it as an issue to fret about. A Nihon Keizai Shimbun article that appeared Nov. 6 tries to examine the matter as it relates to Japan’s overall financial health and the prognosis is not good.

However, the reason for Nikkei’s pessimism is rooted in a larger problem where interest rates play a part: Japan’s over-supply of housing. This blog has covered this topic every which way since it launched in 2009, and none of the conclusions reached by Nikkei are particularly fresh, but as Japan’s population continues to shrink and age they are more relevant than ever and bear repeating.

The main concern of the article is variable interest loans, which account for more than 70 percent of all mortgages in Japan. Variable interest means that the lender has the discretion of changing the interest rate during the period that the borrower pays back the loan, meaning it could go up or down at a designated time. The reason most people take out variable interest loans is that they charge lower rates in the beginning than fixed interest loans do. In Japan, housing loan interest rates are still absurdly low compared to the rest of the developed world. The lowest we could find right now is the 0.289 percent charged by au Jibun Bank, followed by Mizuho’s 0.375-0.675 percent. When people take out variable interest loans starting at these rates, they likely think that even if they go up, it won’t make that much of a difference, but actually it does. According to MFS, a service company that helps customers compare housing loan rates and conditions, a 0.1 point increase in the interest rate would lead to an increase of ¥110 billion in interest debt throughout Japan. In simpler terms, if your variable interest rate rises from 0.5 percent to 1.0 percent, your interest payments will double.

Such an increase wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if the asset value of the home being financed remained the same or went up, but in Japan, as we’ve said here many times, that isn’t the case. Conventional wisdom says that if your mortgage becomes too much to handle you can refinance the loan using your home as collateral, or sell the house, pay off the loan, and then buy something cheaper with the money left over. But in Japan, depending on how old the house is, it may be difficult to sell it for the amount needed to pay off a loan, which means the owner is at risk of going bankrupt if their personal financial situation changes for the worse due to loss of income, sudden severe illness, or whatever.