Frequently Asked Questions
Do you have a question?
Please read the objections page for our response to objections made to LVT.
Please contact us if your question is not answered here.
Before you do, please carefully read the definition of LVT:
LVT is an annual,
nationally determined,
nationally collected,
percentage tax,
paid by the freeholder,
on the open market value
of all land
with no exceptions.
The definition is broken down in the "What is LVT?" article.
NO EXCEPTIONS
-
We need to know two things before we can calculate the LVT rate:
The total value of all land in the country – let’s call it V.
The total amount LVT is to raise – let’s call it R.
The calculation is then simple:
LVT rate = R / T * 100
Of course, this wouldn’t be the rate at the start because LVT would be phased in over 10 years to allow people and the property market to adjust.
We could make wild and exaggerated guesses (“lies”) like The Daily Mail.
Or, we could be sensible and find out.
That’s what: “Preparing for LVT” is all about.
Once we have the real facts we can make an informed decision about introducing LVT or not.
That would make a pleasant change: politicians making decisions based on real facts rather than knee jerk reactions to emotive ranting by the media.
-
Yes.
The process is simple.
Obtain valuations from two independent RICS land valuers using the forms on the Land Tribunal web site. The site will include a list of all RICS surveyors registered with the Land Tribunal for LVT assessment purposes.
Submit your appeal online to the Land Tribunal.
The Land Tribunal may accept the higher of the two independent valuations in which case your LVT assessment value will be changed immediately.
The Land Tribunal may decide to investigate further in which case it will let you know and give you a date by which the investigation will be completed.
Note:
It will be a criminal offence for you, or your RICS surveyors, to deliberately undervalue land for the purpose of reducing LVT due. This can lead to fines or imprisonment and, in the case of RICS surveyors, it can also lead to them being struck off the RICS register.
-
This is covered in the “Preparing for LVT” article.
-
Before answering that question it is worth pointing out that 83.5% of the population in England does not live in the South East.
Land and homes are expensive in the South East and in other areas of high land values (because people are more willing to pay higher prices for land) and most people there are certainly not “wealthy” – they are normal people doing normal jobs.
It is recognised that those in more expensive areas of the country will pay more in LVT – this balances things out, rectifies some of the unfairness of the current system and helps to reduce the North/South divide.
LVT is intended to improve fairness. Part of that involves the reduction of the North/South divide which has left many parts of the North deprived of development compared to the South East. All political parties have, at one time or another, talked about “levelling up” and LVT is probably the first serious attempt to do so.
A level playing field for housing is to the benefit of us all - particularly young people who, at the moment, are almost locked out of the property market in the South East. Not everyone is on London weighting (which totally distorts the property market) or on bankers’ bonuses!
However, it would not be fair to dump a sudden increase on those living in the South East or in pockets of high land value elsewhere.
Methods of minimising the impact are covered in the article “Preparing for LVT”.
-
No.
House prices depend on the market – supply and demand.
Demand is always present and supply is unlikely to increase. Developers have no incentive to reduce prices of new houses and this has a knock-on effect in the market. There is also a limit to new builds set by our shortage of skilled labour – doubling house building requires doubling the skilled labour available - and we don’t have it.
Unless the government commits to a policy of compulsory purchase and permits local authorities to build large numbers of social homes for rent, there is unlikely to be any change.
It is possible the rise in house prices will be slowed by LVT – but that will be the same for everyone so what you get if you sell your home will still be enough to buy a similar home.
-
The value of land does not include the value of anything on top of it: buildings, garden sheds, garden plants etc. It is the answer to the question:
“What would someone pay for this plot of land given where it is and what it may be used for?”
The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) has been doing the job since 1910. (In 2026 the VOA will become part of HMRC.)
The VOA will update the value of all freehold land annually. This will be recorded and made publicly available by the Land Registry.
The VOA has regional offices and keeps an eye on local land and property prices. It is notified automatically of sales and probate valuations as well as when land changes value as a result of Local Authority development plans and planning permission.
The VOA will adjust all land values annually to reflect changes in the local area.
The VOA uses its own staff as well as local surveyors who are members of RICS which was established in 1868.
-
Land value is the property value minus the cost of the buildings on it.
The Valuations Office Agency (VOA - now part of HMRC) has been valuing land for over 100 years and will provide you with an assessment of your land value before LVT is introduced.
You can appeal against that assessment if you think it is too high - see the answer above to “Can I appeal against the LVT assessment value?”
-
Yes - the basic LVT rate will be the same everywhere.
There may be national or local supplements added to the basic LVT rate. For example there may be a supplement on airbnbs, second homes and holiday homes. Local Authorities may add supplements to cover the cost of specific local projects.
-
Land is a fixed and finite thing - we can see it and you can’t hide it or move it.
However, it has been suggested that we could have a tax on rental value because people understand two things:
Property value: as shown on Rightmove
Rental value: how much someone could charge to rent out a property.
So why don’t we simply have a tax on rental value?
Well, most home owners don’t rent out their property and they probably have no idea what its rental value would be.
The biggest problem is that rent is a moveable feast!
Within a mile of where the author is sitting to write this article, there is land with an annual rent of between £70 and £200 per acre. The land is the same quality and it is being used for exactly the same things, a bit of arable but mainly pasture for cattle and sheep.
Why this difference? This is the countryside, this is what happens in the countryside - it is complicated for all sorts of historical reasons.
Check the rents in a block of apartments and you will probably find different tenants are paying different rents - also for historical reasons.
The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) provides annual estimates of rental value for all business premises as a basis for Business Rates. We could get them to provide estimates for the rental value of domestic property and agricultural land.
However, it It is far simpler to get them to provide annual updates of land value based on what someone would pay for it given where it is and what it has permission to be used for. The VOA is notified of all land transfers and of all changes in planning permission - and it is aware of all changes of value in local areas.
It is worth explaining to people that their property consists of two things: the bricks and mortar that they “own” and the land underneath that they “hold” as freehold.
The author’s experience is that explaining this is not difficult - most people get it very quickly.
-
There are good landlords and bad landlords, just as there are good tenants and bad tenants. Both sides need a level of protection or we will end up with no private rental market.
It would an excellent idea to introduce the system used in Ireland: The Rental Tenancies Board.
Landlords will try to pass on the LVT but, as freeholders, they cannot pass on the responsibility for paying LVT.
Tenants are already paying Council Tax and for the majority of them LVT will be less so they can afford at least part of any increased rent.
If the LVT is much more than Council Tax tenants may not be able to pay the full amount. The landlord has a choice: absorb the balance, replace the tenant (which is why tenants need better legal protection) or sell up - and every house sold means one more house on the market for someone to buy as a home.
Market forces will determine what happens. If rents become too high landlords will have no tenants and no income - so they will sell houses on the open market for others to buy.
There is no doubt that we should be encouraging LAs to build far more social housing for rent - and allowing them to use compulsory purchase of land, at current use value (or at a reasonable multiple of current use value) to do so.
If you want to do something to help tenants, join a political party, contact your MP or join a campaign.
-
No. None.
Exceptions create loopholes. Loopholes generate avoidance. Loopholes generate "special cases". Loopholes create court cases. Loopholes become expensive. Tax avoidance advisors like loopholes.
LVT is simple, fair and impossible to avoid - as long as there are no exceptions.
LVT generates tax revenue - governments decide on spending.
"Special cases" should not be considered when collecting tax - however, they can be considered when spending.
Examples:
Government might decide to subsidise sheep rearing on hill farms to compete with cheap lamb from New Zealand. It can do this with a subsidy, not with a tax exemption.
Government might want to encourage people to insulate their homes to reduce energy consumption and emissions. It can do this with a subsidy, not with a tax exemption.
-
LVT is paid by the freeholder, not by tenants.
If you want to do something to help tenants, join a political party, contact your MP or join a campaign.
-
The freeholder pays the LVT, not the leaseholder.
The leaseholder is paying Council Tax which would be scrapped when LVT is introduced. It is therefore not unreasonable that the leaseholder should contribute to the LVT due - possibly as an increase in the annual charge.
If the freeholder declares bankruptcy because of the requirement to pay LVT, the property can be sold, probably to the leaseholder. In the worst case the freehold is transferred to us, as a society, through the crown.
Leasehold is a relic of the middle ages and should be scrapped (as it has been in Scotland) or at least reformed.
The problem in England is that the major freeholders behind leaseholds are massive tax avoiders like the Duke of Westminster and the Cadogan group. They are challenging leasehold reform out of self interest and greed.
If you want to do something about leasehold: join a political party, contact your MP, join a campaign.
-
Yes - "no exceptions.". Note: LVT is a tax on the value of the land only.
-
Yes - "no exceptions". Note: LVT is a tax on the value of the land only.
-
"No exceptions.". Note: LVT is a tax on the value of the land only.
All land has value even if that value is zero. Land that cannot be sold and which does not generate an income, may have zero value and therefore pay zero LVT.
-
The Land Registry will accept up to four named people sharing the freehold on the land. Each will be responsible for paying their share of the LVT.
The freehold can by held by more than four people in a trust (the trustees are responsible for paying the LVT) or by a company (the directors are responsible for paying the LVT).
-
Yes. LVT is payable on all land in the UK and on land outside the UK owned by UK citizens, residents or companies.
To prevent double taxation any property taxes you pay in Spain will be deducted from the LVT due.
The largest landholder in Scotland is Danish - he pays LVT on his Scottish estates in Denmark - not Scotland.
-
In general there are two types of taxes:
A regressive tax takes a higher percentage from those with the lowest earnings and with the lowest wealth.
A progressive tax takes a higher percentage from those with the highest earnings and with the highest wealth.
LVT is a progressive tax.
-
It isn't fair - those with the most pay the least.
Council Tax is an unfair tax on homes and gardens. Homes in Gateshead pay almost three times as much as homes in the same band in Westminster.
-
83% of homeowners will pay less, 16% will pay less than 10% more and 1% will pay more than 10% more.
LVT will be phased in over a 10 years to enable people to become used to it and to allow the housing market to adjust. There will be no sudden increase in payments.
No one will be forced to sell their home because of LVT.
Payments that cannot be afforded may be deferred until the property is sold or transferred.
-
No. Please read our article LVT can’t solve everything.
-
The opposite!
296 Local Authorities in England currently collect Council Tax.
The Land Registry already records freeholders and values. The Valuation Office Agency handles valuations and HMRC will collect the LVT - they have the staff, the data and the systems to do it.
The resources freed up in LAs will be able to speed up planning applications and hold developers to account.
-
No. Local Authorities are in the best position to assess the demand for local services and to deliver those services - they know their local area.
Local Authorities have seen a 40% fall in their income in since 2010 so determining what services they must provide, and funding the full cost of those services, is a matter of high priority.
We need local assessment, local delivery and 100% national funding.
-
"No exceptions.". Note: LVT is a tax on the value of land only.
The National Trust will pay LVT on the open market value of the land it owns.
If the National Trust has land which cannot ever be sold, and which generates no income, the value of that land will be zero for LVT calculations.
Separating how a tax is raised from how the income is spent is the key to avoiding avoidance. If we, as a society, decide to subsidise the National Trust, or anything else, that is a spending decision - nothing to do with how tax is raised.
-
You may have dedicated your field or wood to wild flowers and wild life so it is not currently generating any income.
However, that is irrelevant when assessing value since the question remains:
“if this land came on the market what would someone pay for it given where it is and what it may be used for?”
A field has potential commercial/agricultural value even if it is currently generating no income. If you decided to sell you would have great difficulty forcing the new purchaser to retain it for wild flowers and wild life. You could try putting a “restriction” on the sale, but this would put off potential purchasers, reduce the amount you got for it and, in the long run, would probably not be effective because the new freeholder would apply to get any restriction lifted. Almost certainly you would be heading for endless, and very expensive, litigation.
When people buy land they are not interested in what is on it, they are interested in what if could be used for. If there are things on the land, crops or buildings, they would be valued separately during the sale process – they are not relevant when calculating the value for Land Value Tax.
If you transfer your land to a trust, like a Wildlife or Woodland Trust, it is more than likely that the Valuation Office Agency will accept that the land has no value for Land Value Tax. If the land is sold in the future then of course it acquires value – the amount it was sold for.
-
This is usually followed by “and can I claim a refund of LVT previously paid?”
Land sold at open market value will establish a new LVT value for that land.
Land sold or transferred at below open market value will not establish a new LVT value. For example, a “closed sale”, a private sale not offered on the open market at at a lower value, will not establish a new LVT value. Such a sale or transfer could also lead to Capital Gains Tax complications.
Land sold or transferred in any way at above the assessment value will establish a new LVT value.
There will be no refunds of LVT previously paid since the freeholder will have had every opportunity to appeal against the previous value., The new value, higher of lower, resulting from an open market sale will apply for the new freeholder.
What about stately homes and country houses?
"No exceptions.". Note: LVT is a tax on the value of land only.
We love Chatsworth. It's a beautiful house, lovely garden, idyllic setting and fantastic estate with miles of walks - and the farm shop in nearby Pilsley is pretty good too - if pricey - £3.95 for a bottle (500ml) of beer! The estate provides employment for over 1,000 people, it is very well run and, from the many conversations we have had, people love working there.
We are not philistines, we don't want places like Chatsworth to be pulled down in the same way so many country houses were pulled down in the 1950s.
We say this even though the Cavendish family (via Gernon de Montfichet and Robert de Gernon) received stolen land after The Great Theft of 1066 and John Cavendish assisted William Walworth in the murder of Wat Tyler, one of the leaders of The Great Rebellion of 1381. The Cavendishes went on to suppress other revolts against the landowning class and the money for Chatsworth came from the labour of those who spent their lives digging the coal found on the land the family received as stolen goods.
These places are not "national assets" or "public resources", they are private organisations run as businesses.
Chatsworth is in the hands of a trust - to avoid tax.
Chatsworth is a charity - to avoid tax and to benefit from other tax breaks granted to charities.
Chatsworth is a business and should be treated as a business.
Chatsworth house and gardens were created by the labour of stone masons, builders, architects, plumbers, electricians, joiners, plasterers, painters, gardeners, designers, foresters, labourers etc.
Chatsworth's interior contains objects created by the labour of sculptors, cabinet makers, jewellers, potters, painters, dress makers, milliners, weavers etc.
Chatsworth was paid for by the labour of peasants, farm tenants and coal miners.
The Cavendishes acquired it from ancestors willing to kill to steal it and keep it.
The Cavendishes have contributed nothing yet they own it all.
Stately homes frequently have large amounts of land associated with them and that land generates income from farming rents. Chatsworth has 35,000 acres and the Devonshires also own the Bolton Abbey Estate in Yorkshire, Lismore Castle in Co Waterford and Compton Place in Eastbourne. In 1907 the family owned 192,322 acres across the British Isles - this had been reduced to an estimated 73,000 acres by 2001.
That land should be subject to LVT.
Quite how one would value the land under Chatsworth House itself is open to question (suggestions please). The rule for valuing land is simple: what would someone pay for the land, with no buildings on it, if it had permission to build somewhere like Chatsworth? Maybe a Russian oligarch ("oligarch" translates as "thief") could answer that question!
If stately home owners can't generate enough income to cover the LVT they are free to sell off some of their land - as aristocratic families have been doing for centuries - or to apply to the taxpayer for support. We think such support is justified but we are opposed to taxpayers' money being given away as grants to anyone, for any reason - so any support would be by the way of a loan or by taxpayers (the state) taking a share in the business.
Well run places like Chatsworth can probably stand on their own two feet as businesses even with LVT. After all, a day out for two, looking round the garden, comes to over £50 by the time you have paid for the car park, entry and a sandwich for lunch.
Like many large landowners, Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire, is a wealthy man - he is worth an estimated £1 billion so perhaps he doesn't need to turn to the taxpayer for a handout.
Chatsworth, like many other country estates, is already in receipt of significant public subsidies for land on which they pay no tax.
-
"No exceptions.". Note: LVT is a tax on the value of land only.
The English countryside is full of "estates" ranging for a few hundred acres to tens of thousands of acres. Most estate owners are "rich" in terms of the value of the land they own but this does not always translate into being "rich" in terms of cash in the bank.
Estate owners are responsible for maintaining the buildings on the estate which they rent out either as farms or to tenants wishing to live in the countryside. Most estates are now taking farms "in hand", i.e. with no long term farming tenancy, so they can upgrade the farm houses and rent them out as homes. They make far more money this way than allowing farmers to live there.
The rent generated from tenants may be insufficient to maintain the buildings, to send the landowner's children to public school and to ensure they all live in the style to which they are accustomed.
Many estates avoid taxation by putting the land into a trust, frequently registered in a tax haven.
Landowners live off the labour of others, their tenants, so they are free to take real jobs to generate additional income to cover the LVT - or they can sell off part of their land.
In the case of someone who genuinely can't afford to pay the LVT, a restriction will be entered against the freehold in the Land Register. The LVT outstanding will be recovered when the land is next sold or transferred.
-
“No exceptions.".
Key points
As a society, all land belongs to us.
LVT does not tax farmers or land, it taxes value.
All land has value even if that value is zero.
A flat rate tax applied to all land, with no exceptions, makes for good law.
Exceptions create bad law as do tax breaks and confusing spending with taxation.
Farming is a business - like others.
We can, and should, support real working farmers to grow food and to look after the countryside.
This is a spending decision, not a taxation decision.
We should not support those who hold land merely to avoid tax or to take rent.
This article is worth reading about the future of the countryside.
The phased introduction of LVT over a number of years will give time for farmers to plan.
63% of agricultural land in England is farmed by tenants, not by the landholder. Landlords may try to pass on LVT to tenants by increasing rents but farming is a competitive business and farmers can't make a living beyond a certain level of rent. The market will decide.
LVT can be seen as a way for society to recover the rent charged by landlords - after all, as Winston Churchill said, they do nothing to earn it!
Huge amounts of land have been, and continue to be, purchased by the cash-rich - James Dyson is now the second largest landowner in England with over 36,000 acres - mainly in Lincolnshire.
Land has lots of advantages for the cash-rich:
It's a hedge against any downturn in the economy - the people purchasing it are often the people directly responsible for the crash of 2008!
The Inheritance Tax Act passes by the Conservative government of 1984 removed Estate Duty (Inheritance Tax) from agricultural land. This encouraged the newly rich to invest money in farmland to avoid tax. The result was a sudden and large increase in the costs of agricultural land and a reduction in the number of small owner farms.
In November 2024 the Labour Government announced that it intended to restore IHT at the very favourable rate of 20%. There is no reason why land should be treated differently from any other asset on death.
Trusts, in the UK and in tax havens, enable the ownership of freeholds to be hidden especially since HMRC keeps secret the details of those who benefit from them.
It increases in value because it is a finite resource and there are willing buyers.
It's a status symbol - you've made your money gambling in the City or as a "celebrity", so now you want to join the landed gentry and shoot pheasants.
You get taxpayer handouts from the CAP or the Basic Payments Scheme. James Dyson got £1.6 million a year - tax free!
There is no tax to pay on it!
The price of agricultural land is artificially inflated by all this speculation - LVT will almost certainly help to bring down the cost of land and discourage speculation - making it possible for genuine farmers to purchase land.
Almost half of farmers are tenants and they pay rent just as peasants in the past paid rent to The Lord Of The Manor - and tithes to the church. James Dyson's tenants pay him rent. Andrew Lloyd-Weber's tenants pay him rent. Peregrine Cavendish's tenants pay him rent.
We need to support working farmers in two ways: to produce food and to look after our countryside. We also want to make sure our support goes to those who do the work, not to those who live off rent. These are spending decisions which have nothing to do with LVT.
-
“No exceptions.". Note: LVT is a tax on the value of land only.
LVT is self-adjusting.
Hill farmers are on poorer land which has lower value than rich fenland in Lincolnshire. Lower value means lower LVT so hill farmers will automatically pay less.
Many of us agree that we should support farmers to ensure food security and to look after our countryside but that requires a spending decision, not a taxation decision – it has nothing to do with LVT.
-
In some parts of the country locals are being priced out of the market by second homes, holiday cottages, buy to let and Airbnb.
Local Authorities in such areas can add a supplement to the LVT rate and use the additional revenue to build homes for rent by local people.
-
Please see the article: Who owns Britain? which covers the historical background.