To amend sections 131.02, 319.202, 715.013, 4303.26, 5703.052, 5703.053, 5703.19, 5703.263, 5703.50, 5703.70, 5703.77, 5703.90, 5725.26, and 5751.051 and to enact sections 5747.081, 5755.01, 5755.011, 5755.02, 5755.03, 5755.04, 5755.05, 5755.051, 5755.052, 5755.06, 5755.07, and 5755.99 of the Revised Code to levy a tax on certain high-volume landlords.
SB 28 creates a new state tax on certain large residential landlords in Ohio. The bill defines a “taxable house” as a single-family, two-family, or three-family dwelling and imposes a “housing market impact tax” on any person or combined taxpayer group that owns 50 or more taxable houses in a county. The tax is set at $2,000 per taxable house owned on the first day of each monthly tax period, with monthly filing and payment requirements. The bill also establishes a housing market impact tax revenue fund and directs the revenue to be split between the state’s low- and moderate-income housing trust fund and the local government fund after refunds are handled.
The bill adds a new chapter to the Revised Code, Chapter 5755, and makes related changes to existing tax administration statutes so the new tax is integrated into Ohio’s collection, refund, assessment, lien, and enforcement systems. It authorizes the tax commissioner to issue assessments, penalties, interest, and jeopardy assessments; allows collection through the attorney general; and requires certain ownership and parcel-identification reporting by taxpayers and pass-through entities. It also amends several existing provisions to reference the new tax alongside other state taxes, including refund procedures, tax debt offsets, and administrative enforcement rules.
SB 28 also requires additional disclosure related to ownership of taxable houses. Taxpayers whose income or gross receipts are attributable to ownership of taxable houses must identify parcel numbers and counties on state tax returns, and pass-through entities that own taxable houses must file ownership information with county auditors. The bill further requires county auditors to notify potentially liable owners on property tax bills when they may be subject to the new tax. These provisions are intended to improve state visibility into large-scale residential ownership and support administration of the new levy.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and available context is that the measure is intended as a policy response to large-scale landlord ownership and its perceived effects on the housing market. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests a strong regulatory and revenue-raising approach, with substantial enforcement tools and reporting obligations.
The main point of contention likely concerns the burden the tax places on high-volume landlords and the broader policy question of whether taxing large owners will improve housing affordability or simply increase operating costs that could be passed on to tenants. Other likely concerns include the administrative complexity of monthly reporting, the breadth of the combined taxpayer rules, and the new disclosure requirements for pass-through entities and property owners.
SB 28 would add a new Chapter 5755 to the Revised Code and amend multiple existing tax-administration provisions to incorporate the new housing market impact tax into Ohio’s collection, refund, assessment, and enforcement framework. It would also require new reporting by owners of taxable houses, including parcel identification numbers and county location information, and would create a dedicated revenue fund with specified distributions to housing and local government purposes. The bill would affect large residential property owners, pass-through entities holding such property, county auditors, and the Department of Taxation.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted tax on large landlords, with an emphasis on housing-market policy and revenue generation. The overall tone is assertive and enforcement-oriented rather than compromise-based.
The likely areas of contention are the policy and economic effects of taxing owners of 50 or more single-, two-, or three-family homes in a county, including whether the tax would discourage large-scale ownership, be passed through to renters, or create unintended housing-market effects. The bill’s monthly filing requirements, combined taxpayer rules, and detailed disclosure obligations may also draw criticism for administrative burden and compliance complexity. Supporters would likely emphasize housing affordability and public revenue, while opponents would likely focus on cost, fairness, and market impacts.