If I could build a house suspended over the ground using hot-air balloons, would I evade property tax?

Question

I always wondered about this. What do you think?

I think I mean 'avoid' more than 'evade'.

Okay - what if I parked my balloon house above a state highway? I've seen supermarkets build over an underlying highway to get out of paying property taxes. (There's a classic case in Massachusetts as you head out towards Boston.)

Boston - I thought it (the supermarket) only paid for where it actually touched the ground. Since the brunt of it is over open air, I didn't think it paid for that section.

Answer 1

If you own the land under the house, then you'd pay tax on the land. However, unless the house is "attached" to the land it would not be considered real property subject to tax.

Answer 2

The cost of keeping a house suspended in mid-air would FAR exceed the cost of property taxes. And with a balloon situation, you'd need to tether it to the ground so that it didn't float away, as well as provision for utilities which would require a physical connection to the ground. This would mean that the house was attached to the ground and therefore would be taxed.

That supermarket over the Mass Pike in Newton does pay property taxes, by the way. Even if the State owns the land, the structure is fully taxable to its owner.

Answer 3

No. The concept of real property ownership extends from a point at the center of the earth, though the property lines in the surface and from there straight out to the infinite reaches of space. Not only do you own the land surface, but everything under it and above it. This is why you will often hear about the sale of "air rights" over buildings in cities. The ownership is not just the land surface, but everything above it as well. Thus you also have "mineral rights" and water rights to resources beneath the surface.

The idea of parking a balloon above a highway or public land would be in violation of air rights over those areas. No one could just decide to build a supermarket over a highway overpass without express land-use agreements in place.

Answer 4

If you could have such a house, then according to current definitions, it would not be real estate. So you are correct, although others have pointed out many practical restrictions to your idea.

If this were to occur I think the definition of real estate would change. If you lived in the balloon but came to Earth even occasionally, there would be a way for the state or local governments to tax you because you owned the balloon.

Answer 5

I'm afraid I don't agree with kokopelli...

Your ownership of land DOES theoretically extend down all the way to the center of the earth...but most governments reserve the right to the minerals and other natural resources found on that land, UNLESS you have specifically purchased MINERAL RIGHTS to that land as well.

AND no one owns the air above their homes over a reasonable height above the earth that would accomodate aerial towers for TV or such. THE GOVERNMENT again, reserves the right to ownership of the actual space where any aircraft may pass overhead. And we all know that the exceptions to this are Military air space over their "sensitive" bases, or any private commercial concerns that have government approval for the same reasons.

Answer 6

nope the only way to avoid or evade would be to be a business the location wants and they would give you an exemption for locating to the area. You can get a discount if you are old or infirm (disabled).

Answer 7

Yep,they will just invent another tax like "Airspace Tax" and charge depending how many balloons ya got

Answer 8

the cost would be more than the tax payment. Hot air how much that gonna cost you each day

Answer 9

No, because the house would still have to be hook up to utilities, like water and sewage. You would still be using the streets, police, fire department, library and schools.

Answer 10

I think you should worry about a tornedo coming along and sweeping you off to a place called "Oz" (and your little dog, too).