VCCI proposes that land lease incentives should not be revoked simply because of procedural delays.

Clause 11 of Article 3 of the draft amendment to Clause 1 of Article 38 stipulates that those who lease land from the State must complete procedures to be exempted from or have their land rent reduced for a certain number of years. Accordingly, if they fail to complete or delay the procedures, the land user will not be exempted from or will only be exempted from or have their rent reduced for the remaining preferential period.

The Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) believes that this regulation needs further consideration. In reality, there are many cases where land users are unaware that they are eligible for exemption or reduction of land rent, and therefore do not follow the prescribed procedures.

Land plots are no longer an attractive option for investors. — The Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) proposes that land lease incentives should not be revoked simply because of procedural delays. (Illustrative image/TCD)

In these cases, if the exemption or reduction is completely revoked, it will disadvantage land users and is inconsistent with the support and incentive objectives that the land rent exemption and reduction policy aims for.

Given its nature as a state-sponsored preferential policy, designing regulations that heavily emphasize procedural obligations and eliminate benefits for delays or non-compliance with procedures is not entirely reasonable.

To protect the rights of land users and enhance feasibility, VCCI proposes the following adjustment: State agencies should be responsible for notifying land users that they are eligible for land rent exemption or reduction, and requiring them to complete the procedures within a specified timeframe.

If the land user has been notified but fails to complete the procedures within the specified timeframe, it will be considered a voluntary relinquishment of their rights, and in that case, they will not be eligible for exemption or reduction.

Besides the aforementioned regulations, VCCI stated that there are still some issues that need to be considered. For example, point 4d, clause 6, Article 3 of the Draft stipulates that in cases where households and individuals have paid the full land use fee as notified by the tax authority, they may request the tax authority to recalculate the land use fee according to the provisions of the Resolution.

If the amount payable after recalculation is lower, the land user will be reimbursed the difference through various means.

To ensure clarity and consistency in application, and to avoid situations where tax authorities retain the difference to gradually deduct from future financial obligations, VCCI proposes amending the regulations to clarify the timing of determining financial obligations.

Specifically, it is proposed to add the following content: In cases where there are no other financial obligations at the time the tax authority recalculates the land use fee, the State shall make a refund in cash in accordance with the law on the state budget or relevant laws.

This addition will help make the regulations more transparent, ensure the legitimate rights of land users, and limit different interpretations and applications in practice.

Comment (0)