Disclosure of Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes:
HB 1037 would require public-facing online residential real estate listing platforms in Florida to display estimated ad valorem taxes for listed properties. The estimate must be based on the listing price and current millage rates, using a formula developed annually by the Department of Revenue, rather than the current owner’s tax bill. The bill also requires a disclaimer explaining that millage rates can vary within a county and that the estimate does not include all non-ad valorem assessments, exemptions, discounts, or other tax benefits.
The bill further directs the Department of Revenue to publish, beginning December 15, 2025, the formula and supporting information provided by property appraisers, and to maintain links to county property appraiser tax estimators or home pages. If a listing platform does not calculate taxes itself, it must link to the relevant property appraiser resources. The bill also bars current owner tax amounts from being used in printed listing materials or social media posts about a property, with a limited exception for historical tax information already displayed on some platforms as of January 1, 2025, if shown less prominently than the new estimate.
HB 1037 would amend section 689.261, Florida Statutes, by expanding disclosure requirements for residential property sales to include estimated ad valorem taxes on online listings and by restricting the use of the current owner’s tax amount in marketing materials. It would impose new administrative duties on the Department of Revenue and property appraisers to supply data and publish a standardized estimation formula, while also providing liability protection for listing platforms and real estate licensees that comply with the statute. The act would take effect January 1, 2026.
Based on the available context, the bill appears to have had limited recorded debate and no documented votes in the provided materials. Its policy direction suggests a consumer-disclosure approach aimed at helping prospective buyers better understand likely property tax costs, but the lack of committee transcript detail means there is no clear record of broad support or organized opposition in the supplied context. The bill ultimately died in the Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee.
The main points of potential contention are the burden placed on online listing platforms and real estate licensees to provide standardized tax estimates, the accuracy and variability of those estimates across taxing jurisdictions, and the prohibition on using the current owner’s tax bill in listings and promotional materials. Real estate industry participants may be concerned about compliance costs and liability exposure, while consumer advocates may support the measure as a way to prevent misleadingly low tax impressions for buyers. The exception allowing some historical tax information may also raise questions about how prominently such information can appear and how platforms should distinguish it from the required estimate.