000			01462cam a2200265 4500
001			ABS63230
008			000000n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u109514
100			_aPound, K
245			_aFinance green paper: re-tuning the frequency of revaluation
260			_c2000
490			_aIRRV Insight _v(35) November 2000, 11-12(2)
520			_aInvestigates the response of the valuation profession to the local government finance green paper proposals to change the revaluation cycle. A postal survey revealed a significant difference in opinion between agents and in-house surveyors: 51% of agents believed three years to be the best period between revaluations, whereas 71% of in-house surveyors thought the five-yearly cycle should remain. Discusses five key issues for practitioners in their assessment of the revaluation cycle: rents; budgeting; transitional relief; practical challenges; fairness. Highlights the different motivations of agents and in-house surveyors, concluding that the latter group's responses suggest greater unpredictability for budgeting if more frequent revaluations are introduced.
590			_aABS
650			_aRATING SYSTEM
650			_aLOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
650			_aGREEN PAPER
650			_aTRANSITIONAL RELIEF
650			_aRENTS
650			_aBUDGETING
650			_aREVALUATION CYCLE
650			_aBAYLISS REPORT
690			_aRATING AND LOCAL TAXATION
942			_n0
999			_c65384 _d65384