![\"OPINION](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/NYCapartment.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The publication of property data in New York in preparation for a new “pied \u00e0 terre” tax might not, in itself, represent a new shift in what is legitimate to put in the public domain, but it does raise questions about the proper way to handle such information.\t \t \t \t \t \t <\/p>\n
\n There is a line you sometimes hear in movies where the bad guy or
\n woman tries to intimidate an adversary with the remark \u201cI know
\n where you live.\u201d
\n<\/p>\n
\n Of course, since the dawn of civilization, governments have
\n sought data on where citizens live so that they can tax them. The
\n Romans did it, Chinese emperors did it, the Norman invaders of
\n England did it \u2013 even logging the figures in the Domesday Book \u2013
\n and countless regimes of varying democratic and undemocratic
\n stripes have done so.\u00a0
\n<\/p>\n
\n A question arises, however, as to the extent to which knowledge
\n about who owns what should be put in the public domain and be
\n easy for anyone of average\u00a0intelligence to find. Another
\n consideration is how accurate such information is and whether it
\n can be misleading and inflame hostility toward\u00a0people.
\n<\/p>\n
\n Which brings us to Zohran Mamdani, Mayor of New York City, who
\n introduced his \u201cpied \u00e0\u00a0terre\u201d tax on second homes
\n in NYC. It appears that the publication of data on\u00a0those
\n potentially in scope for this new tax has caused controversy,
\n sparking claims that Mamdani, who has targeted HNW individuals as
\n a source of revenue, is \u201cdoxxing\u201d people. (The optics of all this
\n were not helped by Mamdani issuing a video back in May in which
\n he was filmed speaking outside hedge fund tycoon Ken Griffin\u2019s
\n home and looking through a hole in a door.)
\n<\/p>\n
\n Let\u2019s leave aside the specifics of the new tax. (There is, as
\n readers know, a debate out there about a possible wealth tax and
\n other measures.)\u00a0A question here is what is being done with
\n the data that has been collected, and why it was published in the
\n way it was. City Hall has issued an Excel spreadsheet containing
\n more than 275,000 entries giving names of people, trusts,
\n companies, various numbers and other entities. Addresses cover
\n Manhattan, Brooklyn, Long Island, the Bronx, and other areas. It
\n is unclear whether all the data can be used to collect the
\n pied \u00e0\u00a0terre tax. About 250 rows of the spreadsheet
\n in the \u201cApartment\u201d line refer to \u201cRES\u201d, \u201cRESID\u201d, \u201cRESI\u201d and
\n \u201cSUPER\u201d, which are resident managers\/superintendent entities, and
\n presumably not in scope. It appears that City Hall may have
\n issued details on far more properties than the release
\n warranted.\u00a0
\n<\/p>\n
\n This is a lot of data \u2013\u00a0close to one\u00a0million records,
\n an executive in the financial services sector\u00a0tells me who
\n has looked at the figure. He says\u00a0more than 95 per cent of
\n the properties in this database\u00a0fall below the value
\n threshold applying to the new tax anyway. The median condo
\n valuation on the roll is apparently about $250,000,\u00a0so it
\n appears to be from some AI-driven searches. This begs the
\n question of why so much of this data was issued.
\n<\/p>\n
\n (Family Wealth Report has contacted City Hall about the
\n matter; it had not received a response at the time of going to
\n press.)
\n<\/p>\n
\n How big a deal is this? A lawyer who has studied the new tax told
\n me this week that this episode is not necessarily an intimidatory
\n act by City Hall, given that the sort of information collected
\n could have been obtained via other records. Even so, it is quite
\n a step change to put it all in one place. \u00a0
\n<\/p>\n
\n International context may help us to judge what is going on.
\n Countries such as the US, the UK, those of mainland Europe and
\n others will typically have forms of land registry and other
\n databases that people can, with varying levels of access, check
\n into. To use the Land Registry in England, for example, a person
\n must fill out a form and pay a small fee. A journalist such as
\n your correspondent has used UK Companies House, to give one
\n example, to find out who the directors of a firm are and to
\n scrutinize their accounts. A realtor can use various online and
\n old-style paper records to investigate ownership.\u00a0
\n<\/p>\n
\n A problem is that currently where demands for transparency are
\n loud, governments have\u00a0with some justification sought to
\n respond by putting more details about beneficial ownership into
\n the public realm. But there are conditions to root out frivolous
\n use of such information.\u00a0Take the European Union. In
\n November 2022, a move toward\u00a0transparency under the Fifth
\n Anti-Money Laundering Directive was
\n reversed<\/a> by the Court of Justice of the European Union,
\n citing privacy worries. Presently, the use of such information is
\n restricted to certain groups that must show a “legitimate”
\n interest \u2013\u00a0which begs questions as to how that’s defined.
\n (See my thoughts on that here<\/a>.)
\n<\/p>\n
\n In the US, perhaps the most significant move was the Corporate
\n Transparency Act (CTA), taking force from January 2024. To give
\n one aspect of the law, the CTA significantly affects estate
\n planning and trust administration. (See a comment
\n here<\/a>.) While trusts are generally not “reporting companies,”
\n they must disclose beneficial ownership if they own or control
\n such entities. But the \u201cvibe shift\u201d in Washington DC with the new
\n Trump administration has changed the game. The House Committee on
\n Financial Services voted 26-25 on April 21 to advance legislation
\n that would limit CTA reporting requirements to foreign entities
\n and beneficial owners.\u00a0
\n<\/p>\n
\n It appears that the picture about disclosing beneficial
\n ownership.\u00a0with all the tax, privacy and other implications,
\n resembles a patchwork at best, and a mess at worst. Wealth
\n managers who want to establish the bona fides of their clients
\n and conduct KYC and other checks may value databases of BO
\n information, including of second homes in Manhattan, but there is
\n also a need to ensure that controls are in place so that those
\n seeking such data have a valid reason to do so.
\n<\/p>\n