On July 16 the government held a tax forum as the final leg of its real-estate “week of destiny.” Hosted by the Ministry of Economy and Finance at the Bank Hall in Jung-gu, Seoul, the “Public Listening Forum on Property Taxation” was attended by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Gu Yun-chul. It followed the Ministry of Land’s supply forum on the 14th and the Financial Services Commission’s finance forum on the 15th, wrapping up a three-day relay. At the event, experts reached broad agreement on shifting the basis of Korea’s comprehensive real-estate tax (jongbuse) away from the “number of homes” and toward the “value of homes.” Today we walk through the actual points of contention, one by one. 🏛️

Key Summary (TL;DR)

  • 📌 Held on July 16 at the Bank Hall in Jung-gu, Seoul, with Deputy PM and Finance Minister Gu Yun-chul attending, as the “Public Listening Forum on Property Taxation” — the finale of the “week of destiny” (supply on the 14th, finance on the 15th, tax on the 16th)
  • 📌 Experts broadly agreed on shifting the comprehensive real-estate tax from a “number of homes” basis to a “value of homes” basis — easing the burden on multiple-home owners while raising it on a single high-priced “prime home”
  • 📌 A proposal emerged to redesign the single-home tax credit (currently up to 80%) away from age and length of holding and toward actual residence, along with introducing a payment-deferral scheme
  • 📌 Thresholds of 3, 5 and 10 billion won in market value were floated as the line for “ultra-high-priced homes” to face heavier taxation, making the boundary a key issue
  • 📌 On holding taxes, “raise to advanced-economy levels” clashed with “go slow to avoid locking up supply,” while a structural shift toward higher holding taxes and lower transaction taxes gained traction — the government plans to unveil its tax reform after the July 23 presidential forum, around the end of July

🏛️ Deputy PM Gu: “Mouth Shut, Ears Wide Open” — The Forum Opens

The first posture Deputy PM Gu struck at the forum was listening. He said he would “keep his mouth shut and his ears wide open,” signaling that the government would gather a wide range of public and expert opinion rather than arrive with its conclusions already fixed. As the final leg of a three-day relay following supply (14th) and finance (15th), the intent reads as setting the broad direction of tax reform on top of public input.

Gu also made clear that the policy’s center of gravity would sit with owner-occupiers and non-homeowners. While the government should expand housing supply and strengthen financial support to help non-homeowners buy a home, he questioned whether it should extend support to those who hold multiple properties or homes they do not actually live in. The stance is to back genuine end-users firmly while drawing a line against speculative, non-resident demand — and the tax discussion proceeded along that direction.

⚖️ From “Number of Homes” to “Value” — A Tailwind for Multi-Home Owners, a Headwind for the “Prime Home”

The clearest area of agreement was shifting the comprehensive real-estate tax basis from the “number of homes” to the “value of homes.” Under the current structure, the count of homes owned heavily drives the tax burden, so several relatively cheaper homes can carry a heavier burden than a single expensive one. For example, three homes worth 1 billion won each can face a heavier tax than a single 3-billion-won home.

Experts argued that this structure taxes the count rather than asset value, creating a distortion, and proposed using the combined value of the real estate held as the basis. Such a change would ease the burden on multiple-home owners while potentially raising it on a single high-priced home — the so-called “prime home.” It amounts to a tailwind for multi-home owners and a headwind for expensive single homes. This, however, is only agreement on direction reached at the forum; the specific thresholds and rates remain undecided.

🏠 A Single-Home Credit Based on Residence, Not Age — Rethinking the Up-to-80% Break

There were also calls to overhaul the tax credit for single-home households. The single-home credit currently combines an elderly-owner credit and a long-term-holding credit for up to 80%, but because that design centers on age and length of holding, the benefit can flow regardless of whether the owner actually lives there.

Experts saw this up-to-80% credit as having encouraged concentration into a “prime home” and undermined fairness. They proposed redesigning the credit around actual residence rather than age or holding period, and adjusting its scope with residence at the center. Alongside this, a “payment deferral” scheme was floated as a safeguard, letting income-poor elderly single-home owners pay the tax later rather than being pushed by an immediate burden. The direction is to protect owner-occupiers firmly while trimming the credits that have gone to those who do not live in the home.

💰 Where Does “Ultra-High-Priced” Begin? — Weighing 3, 5 and 10 Billion Won

Where to draw the line for the “ultra-high-priced homes” targeted for heavier taxation was another point of contention. On tax breaks for ultra-high-priced owner-occupier single homes, the view that taxation should be strengthened collided with the argument that single-home owners who have actually lived there for years deserve protection.

Thresholds of 3, 5 and 10 billion won in market value were floated. Because the width of the taxable pool changes sharply depending on where the line is drawn, the very definition of an ultra-high-priced home is a sensitive variable in this reform. Concerns that taxing even long-term owner-occupied homes heavily could chill the freedom to relocate coexisted with the counterargument that keeping broad credits even for ultra-high-priced homes is excessive.

📊 Higher Holding Taxes, Lower Transaction Taxes — “Strengthen” vs “Go Slow”

Views split over holding taxes. A strengthening camp argued that Korea’s effective holding-tax rate is low compared with advanced economies and should be raised, while a go-slow camp warned that raising it abruptly could freeze listings — a “supply lock-up” — as owners try to avoid the burden.

Still, considerable agreement gathered around a structural shift: raise holding taxes gradually while lowering transaction taxes such as the acquisition tax and capital-gains tax, moving the tax burden toward the holding stage without blocking transactions. The logic is that higher holding taxes paired with lower transaction taxes let listings circulate more smoothly and ease the tax burden that has suppressed deals. Some described the forum as nearly a “venting session on holding taxes,” so heavily did opinions on them pour out.

📅 What’s Left — The July 23 Presidential Forum and the End-of-July Tax Bill

The three-day relay of forums wrapped up with this tax session, but the policy-decision process still lies ahead. The Ministry of Economy and Finance plans to unveil its tax reform before long, after the July 23 real-estate forum chaired by President Lee Jae-myung. The issues that poured out over three days — supply (14th), finance (15th) and tax (16th) — are set to be organized into a broad direction at the 23rd forum.

The specifics on tax are expected to land in the “2026 Tax Revision Bill” due between late July and early August. The key question is what figures will be locked in for the shift in the comprehensive real-estate tax basis, the residence-centered redesign of the single-home credit, the ultra-high-priced threshold, and the restructuring of holding and transaction taxes.

📌 In Sum — The Direction Is “Value and Residence,” the Numbers Remain Open

This tax forum confirmed a broad-brush consensus on direction: value over the number of homes, residence over mere holding. The current was clear — move the comprehensive real-estate tax basis from count to value, redesign the single-home credit around residence, and raise holding taxes gradually while lowering transaction taxes. Disagreement remained, however, over the ultra-high-priced threshold and the pace of any holding-tax increase.

Yet no policy was finalized today. Because the government opened up the issues rather than presenting conclusions, the flow from the July 23 presidential forum to the late-July-to-early-August tax bill will be a clue to the market’s direction in the second half. In particular, if the comprehensive real-estate tax basis shifts to value, the math changes sharply for multiple-home owners and high-priced single-home owners alike — so it is worth watching the remaining schedule and the announced details according to your own ownership situation.

※ This article is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice.

Sources