Housing industry ploy

The fixed supply of land and other fixed factors means that they will bear the full incidence of the company tax that is applied to them

This reflects an understanding that Land Taxes can't be passed on like GST can be, a further inefficiency for that tax. Economic theory hasn't been re-written there.

Where did KPMG Econtech develop the thesis that GST is the more efficient tax?

Much of it comes down to the impurities that have been allowed to enter the Land Tax system with regards to progressive Land Tax rates, the impact of thresholds and aggregations.

We are strong proponents of a simplified Land Tax system that is set at a higher and flatter rate.

It must be strongly noted that the findings of KPMG Econtech and thus the CIE should not be taken as an excuse to remove potentially the most efficient of all taxes. This is the dangerous leap of faith the CIE and its backers are demanding governments support.

Damagingly, KPMG Econtech critique the CIE model in their Henry Review paper (p23)Efficiencies of Taxes:

However, the results of the CIE study do not allow an assessment of the relative inefficiencies of each tax.

When discussing the efficiencies of taxation, surely the inefficiencies must be counted too!

On p84 of the CIE report, following a discussion on the nature of housing supply being more elastic than housing demand:

It follows that consumers, that is, house buyers would end up bear (sic) most of the taxes discussed previously.

However, this ignores the role that land plays in the housing game. Land is needed first and foremost to build housing – it is not a given. This is glossed over. The incidence of Land Tax falls on the land owner. Unless economic theory has been re-written, this simplification in the modelling continues to smooth the ground for GST to 'become' more efficient than Land Tax. Gavin Putland writes extensively on the irregularities of housing supply as elastic vis land supply as inelastic in his Why Land Tax can't be shifted onto tenants.