Published at : 27 Dec 2022
Volume : IJtech
Vol 13, No 7 (2022)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v13i7.6188
Mohammed Ali Berawi | 1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia 2. Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Development (CSID), Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 1 |
Mustika Sari | Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Development (CSID), Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia |
Adinda Alya Salsabila | Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Development (CSID), Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia |
Bambang Susantono | Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Development (CSID), Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia |
Roy Woodhead | Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S1 1WB, United Kingdom |
The increasing demand for
vertical residential development, particularly in urban areas, contributes to
regional income growth through the collection of building taxes. In Indonesia,
the vertical building is one of the non-standard objects applying an individual
tax building assessment based on the building component cost list (BCCL) table
in determining the value of the payable tax. However, the existing assessment
system still cannot show the actual value of the building due to its
limitations. Consequently, the building tax assessment process is ineffective
and inefficient regarding assessment time and value accuracy. This study investigates the utilization of
Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the assessment process of building
taxation, considering a high-rise apartment building in Indonesia as the case
study. The findings show that compared to the existing system, the final
building value used as the basis in the tax assessment can be generated more
accurately, involving a detailed calculation of dimensions and variations of
building materials. It can be concluded that BIM’s capability to recognize
building objects, extract quantity, and calculate automatically can help
improve the objectivity of the assessment results and time efficiency in the
tax assessment process.
Apartment; Building Information Modeling; Tax assessment
The high
rate of urbanization has increased the demand for housing in urban areas.
However, this growth faces some challenges regarding physical infrastructure
development, one of which is limited land availability (Qin
& Wang, 2019; Habibi & Asadi, 2011). Some major cities in
developing countries develop residential buildings in a vertical direction as
one of the strategies to meet the housing needs of city inhabitants (Lau, 2011; Wong,
2004). In addition to solving the housing demand problem, these developments
also bring a stream of income for regional governments through the tax on
buildings (Berawi et al., 2021; Cho & Choi, 2014).
Based on the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 28 of 2009 concerning Regional Taxes and Levies, a vertical housing unit is indicated as a tax object, the tax imposition of which is determined through an individual assessment scheme. This building tax assessment is based on the building component cost list (BCCL), carried out by involving several documents, such as Tax Object Notification Letters, Tax Object Notification Letters’ Attachments, and Tax Object Worksheets. This assessment process needs to be conducted at least every three years to renew the selling value of the building (Asher, 2002). However, assessments are only done for new tax objects due to limited resources (Anwar, 2019).
Implementing the individual
building tax assessment reports used by the appraisers from relevant agencies
in the BCCL method is expected to enable the assessment results to be followed
by performing the steps of the appraisal process. However, this assessment
method has not fully answered the needs of appraisers or surveyors in following
and reconstructing the assessment process because, in reality, the delivery of
assessment results is still limited to verbal descriptions, writing, and images
(Hendriatiningsih et al.,
2019; Haldenwang et al., 2015). Furthermore, assessment using 2D
images lacks accurate projection for the 3D physics of a building (Rajabifard et al., 2018;
Shojaei et al., 2013).
3D visualization has been widely
known to have the ability to show better accuracy in understanding and interpreting
data, as well as displaying a more solid form, improving the delivery of
information from existing physical buildings (Seipel et al., 2020; Hassan
et al., 2008). Previous studies have supported
this statement; Atazadeh et al. (2016) demonstrate how 3D digital data
associated with various complex ownership spaces can be visualized and managed
by developing a prototype Building Information Modelling (BIM) model for a
multi-story building. Moreover, Atazadeh et al. (2021) also proposed a prototype BIM
model showcasing that land administration and its registry information can be
mapped into a 3D BIM environment.
Correspondingly, the building information’s
completeness and disclosure from the 3D visualization can be utilized to
improve the accuracy of the individual building tax assessment reports (Isikdag et al., 2014). On top
of that, an assessment system with a high-speed updating process is required to
support the accuracy of tax revenue assessment. Therefore, this study attempts
to investigate the solution to the need for a relatively faster and more
accurate updating process of building tax assessments by utilization of BIM
technology. The fifth dimension of BIM was employed, which has the capability
of design planning, cost estimation, and scheduling of a construction project (Kisel, 2021).
Previous studies have also
explored the use of BIM-based 3D visualization in various areas of building
cost estimation. El Yamani et al. (2019) demonstrated the potential of BIM
as an emerging technology to improve the housing valuation system based on the
hedonic approach, arguing that 2D applications are limited in communicating the
complexity of a 3D building structure. Furthermore, Sladi?
et al. (2020) proposed a more efficient process
model for building a public registry in Serbia incorporating BIM-based 3D
information. On the city scale, Arcuri et al. (2020) developed an automated calculation of the depreciated
reconstruction cost (DRC) by integrating geographic information systems (GIS)
technology and BIM 5D. However, minimal studies have been found to have
compared the calculation of building valuation between the manual and BIM-based
assessment methods. This study is expected to contribute to building valuation
and tax assessment literature.
This study was
conducted in two steps to obtain its research objective, adopting both
qualitative and quantitative approaches. In the first step, the qualitative
method was carried out through a literature study and in-depth interviews with
experts to identify the variables from individual building tax assessments that
can be integrated into BIM. Accordingly, the second step used the quantitative
approach to utilize the BIM application as an alternative for apartment
building tax assessments. The variables identified in the first step were used
to perform cost calculations and BIM model prototyping, applied to the case
study, an apartment building in Jakarta, Indonesia, called the MS apartment.
The information from the BIM
model is used as the basis for the building value calculation, conducted in
several steps as implemented in Hendriatiningsih et al. (2019):
1) Determining the construction work type based on data from the construction work unit, completed with material composition and coefficients.
2) Specifying the cost of work types based on the volume calculated from the BIM model
3) Selecting the building facilities’ procurement cost from the information in BIM.
4) Calculating the building’s Replacement Cost New
(RCN), an estimate of the construction cost based on current labor and material
prices for new construction of the same usability, size, and design. The construction work
units issued by the Indonesian Ministry of Public Works were used to determine
the price of building materials for each building component. The value obtained
from the RCN calculation is then reduced by the depreciation value to get the
final building value. The process is explained in Figure 1.
5) Calculating the
depreciation value (DV) using the Straight Line Method (SLM), based on the number of months computed using the following Equation (1):
|
6)
Calculating the building’s practical
life (BPL) as one factor of physical depreciation, using Equation (2) below:
|
7) Calculating the final value of the building that becomes the building’s Sales Value of the Tax Object (SVTO), which is calculated using Equation (3).
|
|
1) The
apartment building’s tax assessment reports were obtained from the Office of
Regional Tax and Levy Service at the sub-district level, where the apartment is
located
2) Building
historical data of the case study in the form of geometric and non-geometric
data obtained from the project construction service company
3) Field
survey data are taken from surveys and field documentation to supplement
building information
Finally,
in-depth interviews were conducted to validate and obtain feedback from
building tax professionals
Figure 1 Research Workflow
3.1. Building Components for Tax
Assessment Integrated into BIM
The literature study conducted to determine the variables of building tax assessments that can be integrated into BIM examines the literature discussing the use of 3D variables in property valuation. The variables obtained are classified into indoor and outdoor variables. However, it was found that the BIM model is more suitable for reviewing indoor variables because it has semantic and geometric capabilities at the scale of building elements (Zhao, 2017; Domínguez et al., 2011). Therefore, the 3D building variables modeled in BIM significantly affect the building value for tax assessment were focused on indoor variables. It is in line with previous research on 3D modeling for property valuation, stating that 3D building variables considered in tax assessments were indoor structural variables, namely property geometry, size, level, cost, and quality. In contrast, the outdoor building variable is generally used for land tax assessment (Yamani et al., 2021; Arcuri et al., 2020).
Moreover,
a comparison between the data structure of the Tax Object Notice and the BIM
model in Autodesk Revit was carried out to identify 3D building components for
tax assessment handled in BIM applications. The specified building components
and the identity data in the BIM model are summarized in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively.
Table 1 Building Components for
Tax Assessment in BIM Autodesk Revit
Building Components |
|||||
1 |
Air
terminals |
11 |
Basement Floor Area |
21 |
Gate |
2 |
Ceilings |
12 |
Flooring |
22 |
Hot
water system |
3 |
Communication
devices |
13 |
Roof |
23 |
Sewage
treatment system |
4 |
Electrical
power |
14 |
Structural
column material |
24 |
Artesian Aquifer |
5 |
Genset
equipment |
15 |
Exterior
wall material |
25 |
Reservoir |
6 |
Fire
protection |
16 |
Interior
wall material |
26 |
Swimming Pool |
7 |
Lightning
rod |
17 |
Exterior
wall coating material |
27 |
Tennis Court |
8 |
Number
of building floors |
18 |
Interior
wall coating material |
28 |
Road Pavement |
9 |
Number
of basements |
19 |
Type
and number of lifts |
29 |
Sound System |
10 |
Building
area |
20 |
Type
and number of escalators |
30 |
TV System |
Table 2 Components’ Identity Data
in BIM Autodesk Revit
Identity Data |
|||||
1 |
Area |
6 |
High |
11 |
Type |
2 |
Cost |
7 |
ID Material |
12 |
Volume |
3 |
Count |
8 |
Length |
13 |
Work Breakdown Structure |
4 |
Family |
9 |
Level |
14 |
Width |
5 |
Family and Type |
10 |
Material: Name |
15 |
Total Cost (Customize) |
3.2. Utilizing
BIM for Tax Assessment of Apartment Building
3.2.1. Developing
3D Model in BIM for Property Value
Historical data of the
investigated apartment building, results of field surveys, and additional data
collected were then inputted as the basis for developing a 3D model in Autodesk
Revit as the BIM tool used in this study. In the early modeling stages, the BIM
model’s objectives and detail need to be defined. In this study, BIM modeling
is intended to estimate the RCN of a building; therefore, the approach used is
the BIM 5D, which can estimate building costs (Reizgevi?ius et al., 2018). The accuracy of the information used and the
model’s ability to meet this objective need to be adjusted to a specific Level
of Development (LOD) (Latiffi et al., 2015). Therefore, the LOD 300 was used in this
study for its ability to define the approximate quantity, size, shape, and
location, making its model components expressed with the correct dimensions in
a precise position.
The BIM model development
was started by determining the constituents of building information, which
include the main building components, material components, facility components,
datum elements, and annotation elements. Consequently, data on the determined
components and features were then collected from the 2D and 3D technical
drawing documents of the MS Apartment project. The identities of building
components used in the BIM modeling in this study include the size data of the
building components, work unit price analysis, Material ID, and the WBS code.
Building component size data were obtained automatically from the BIM model
quantity extraction results. Meanwhile, the identity data for analysis of work
unit prices, Material IDs, and WBS codes used were generated from the MS
Apartment project documents.
In the BCCL assessment, the structural component of a building has become an integral part of the main building; therefore, the structure’s modeling for the building valuation was not carried out in this study. Furthermore, there was a lack of information obtained for facility components. Consequently, the values for the main structure and facility components used as the assumption were adopted from the assessment reports manually submitted in the BCCL method. Hence, the comparative data in this study was conducted for the value of building components consisting of inner wall materials, inner wall cladding, outer wall materials, outer wall cladding, ceilings, roof coverings, and ceiling coverings. Figure 2 shows the process of developing the BIM model.
Figure 2 The Process of 3D Modeling in BIM Revit
The BIM model was developed
starting from the building components, such as walls, floors, and the roof
system, followed by the identity data. The 3D model of three apartment floors
being developed in BIM with its identity data is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Inputting identity data to the
floor components of the 3D model in BIM Revit
Moreover, the BIM 5D can estimate building costs through automatic quantity extraction in Revit and can be used to display information on the take-off material from 3D models. The non-graphical data from the 3D model was extracted and generated as tabular data, which was then exported into a spreadsheet application. Figure 4 shows the information display generated for the floor material from the third basement to the ground floor.
Figure 4 Information display for the
floor material in BIM Revit
Figure 5 shows the 3D model fully developed in BIM 5D. The utilization of a BIM-based 3D model in calculating the building value based on its geometric form in the model and the cost aspect is discussed in the next section.
Figure 5 3D Model of MS
apartment building developed
in BIM Revit
3.2.2. Comparative
Analysis of Property Value Between BIM-based and Manual Methods
The building component costs in the BIM
method were calculated based on their volume on the BIM 3D model. The comparative analysis of the building
component costs from both the BCCL and BIM-based calculations is detailed in
Table 3 below.
Table 3 The Calculation of Building
Component Cost
BCCL |
|
BIM |
||
Material Name |
Total Cost |
|
Material Name |
Total Cost |
Interior
Wall Material |
|
Interior
Wall Material |
||
Half Brick Wall |
IDR
8,234,284,604 |
|
75mm lightweight brick |
IDR 3,899,640,972 |
|
100mm lightweight brick |
IDR
5,354,063,067 |
||
|
125mm lightweight brick |
IDR
734,828,187 |
||
|
6mm Calciboard |
IDR
29,900,811 |
||
|
GRC |
IDR
31,536,741 |
||
|
9mm Gypsum |
IDR
14,200,268 |
||
|
9mm Gypsum WR |
IDR
810,925 |
||
Interior
Wall Coating Material |
|
Interior
Wall Coating Material |
||
Paint |
IDR
868,624,750 |
|
Interior Paint |
IDR
1,588,205,928 |
|
Oil Paint |
IDR
305,409,148 |
||
|
Ceramics |
IDR
27,074,143 |
||
|
Homogeneous Tiles 1 |
IDR
28,531,748 |
||
|
Homogeneous Tiles 2 |
IDR
7,006,202,673 |
||
|
Homogeneous Tiles 3 |
IDR
39,906,667 |
||
Granite |
IDR
329,440,860 |
|
Metal Ceiling |
IDR
106,887,500 |
|
Teracota |
IDR
426,462,636 |
||
|
Andesite |
IDR
221,935,248 |
||
|
Marble |
IDR
2,683,915,511 |
||
|
Artificial Wood |
IDR
218,917,455 |
||
Exterior
Wall Material |
|
Exterior
Wall Material |
||
Precast Concrete |
IDR
36,029,657,496 |
|
Precast Concrete |
IDR
15,562,370,996 |
|
8mm GRC Panel |
IDR
6,998,061,906 |
||
Exterior
Wall Coating Material |
|
Exterior
Wall Coating Material |
||
Paint |
IDR
3,146,615,010 |
|
Exterior Paint |
IDR
659,703,270 |
Ceiling |
|
Ceiling |
||
Gypsum |
IDR
25,129,980,120 |
|
9mm Gypsum |
IDR
9,419,550,533 |
|
9mm Gypsum WR |
IDR
2,739,888,661 |
||
|
Skimcoat |
IDR
533,879,627 |
||
|
Aluminium Composite |
IDR
279,303,712 |
||
|
Metal Ceiling 1 |
IDR
7,202,301,600 |
||
|
|
|
Metal Ceiling 2 |
IDR
482,104,714 |
Roof |
|
Roof |
||
Concrete |
IDR
357,347,956 |
|
Concrete |
IDR
1,105,887,724 |
Flooring |
|
Flooring |
||
Cement |
IDR
469,759,360 |
|
Andesite |
IDR
1,393,777,170 |
Loka Marble |
IDR
1,410,347,500 |
|
Coral
Stone |
IDR
16,084,813 |
Stone CERAMICS |
IDR
7,388,719,632 |
|
Cement |
IDR 698,769,837 |
|
Ceramics 1 |
IDR
153,310,189 |
||
|
Ceramics 2 |
IDR
43,764,400 |
||
|
Floor
Hardener 1 |
IDR
221,489,592 |
||
|
Floor
Hardener 2 |
IDR
455,135,570 |
||
|
Homogeneous
Tiles 1 |
IDR
8,028,604,946 |
||
|
Homogeneous
Tiles 2 |
IDR
56,977,275 |
||
|
Homogeneous
Tiles 3 |
IDR
5,328,471 |
||
|
Pebble
Stone |
IDR
414,315 |
||
|
Artificial
Wood |
IDR
27,092,428 |
||
|
Marble |
IDR
506,883 |
||
|
Gutter
Grill |
IDR
17,261,100 |
Table 4 compares the
component costs of the building’s RCN value used as a constituent of the
building tax expected value and the existing BCCL method.
Table 4 Comparison of
Apartment’s RCN Value between BCCL and BIM-Based Methods
No. |
Building
Component |
Building’s
RCN Value | |
BCCL Method |
BIM-Based Method | ||
1 |
Main
components |
IDR 253,933,278,610 |
IDR 253,933,278,610 |
2 |
Interior
wall material |
IDR 8,234,284,604 |
IDR
10,064,980,971 |
3 |
Interior
wall coating material |
IDR 1,198,065,610 |
IDR
12,653,448,657 |
4 |
Exterior
wall material |
IDR 36,029,657,496 |
IDR
22,560,432,902 |
5 |
Exterior
wall coating material |
IDR 3,146,615,010 |
IDR
659,703,270 |
6 |
Ceiling |
IDR 25,129,980,120 |