新築VS中古VSリノベ、令和8年税制改正でどう変わるのか？

Today, I'd like to talk about the outline of the 2026 tax reform, which was recently approved by the Cabinet. Last time, I explained the extension of the housing loan tax credit and its key points, but upon re-examining the tax reform outline, I felt that the government has quite clearly articulated its direction for future home building and home ownership. Today, I'll explain these points, interspersed with some casual conversation as usual. I'm often asked, "Mr. Morishita, is it better to build a new house, or buy a used one and renovate it?" This debate has been going on for a long time. However, looking at this tax reform, I feel the government's stance is quite clear. While the policy of varying the tax credit based on the performance of the house has been announced, I believe there are two other major messages. One is, "If you're going to buy a house, think carefully about the location." The other is, "Make more use of existing houses, that is, used houses." In other words, the government isn't aiming to increase new construction in the suburbs, but rather to create a society where people gather in urban areas and designated residential zones, and where used homes are traded as assets. Until now, Japan has had a strong belief that "houses are consumables whose value depreciates the moment they are built," but it seems they are shifting towards a direction where housing is circulated as an asset, similar to Europe and the US. This is also linked to the compact city policy. With a declining population, if people live spread out thinly like in the past, maintaining infrastructure such as water, roads, gas, and electricity becomes difficult. Furthermore, healthcare, elderly care, and public transportation cannot be supported unless a certain number of people live together. Therefore, the government is prioritizing designated residential zones where they want people to live. Considering this, I think that in the future, homes that are easier to maintain value will be those located near train stations in urban areas, specifically in designated residential zones. Until now, housing performance was the main factor, but I think the future will be an era where the value of a house is determined by "housing performance x location." In other words, a compact home that is close to a train station and energy-efficient will likely become a key factor. And another option is existing homes. I think the national policy is shifting from focusing on new construction to utilizing existing homes. Previously, the trend was to "build lots of new homes to support domestic demand," but now there's already a large housing stock. Therefore, the idea is to effectively utilize it as social capital. National policy is a major trend, so people and businesses that align with it often have an advantage. So, what kind of existing homes are advantageous? I believe it's homes that have undergone "energy-saving renovations" and have "confirmed earthquake resistance." Energy-saving renovations reduce utility costs and make them more likely to qualify for tax breaks. Also, homes with earthquake resistance compliance certificates are desirable. Even with existing homes, there's a trend towards prioritizing those that have had their earthquake resistance and quality thoroughly checked. These are often checked not only by architects, but also by third-party organizations such as housing performance evaluation agencies and insurance companies. Therefore, when choosing an existing home, it's important not just to choose based on price, but to check how well earthquake resistance, insulation, and energy efficiency have been confirmed. And that's why I believe location is the most important factor when choosing an existing home. Location is something you can't change later. The station isn't going to suddenly become closer. But performance can be improved later. Therefore, buying a used house near a station, renovating it with insulation and seismic reinforcement, and maintaining its asset value while taking advantage of mortgage tax deductions – I think this will become a very realistic option in the future. Also, recently, when looking at used houses, I've found "repair history" to be particularly important. Even if someone says, "We renovated it 15 years ago," often there are no estimates, photos, or anything else left. However, having records of the work provides peace of mind when both buying and selling. Therefore, you should definitely keep all documentation from renovations. In my own opinion, I feel that in the future, there will be a polarization between "high-performance new construction" and "buying a well-located used house and renovating it." On the other hand, I think the most difficult situation will be for those building low-performance houses in the suburbs. However, I'm not dismissing the suburbs entirely. There are places where the local industry and community are strong, and where the government provides support. ...