I believe the original intention was to tax the market value of the land a structure sits on, not the structure itself. So in the case of apartments, presumabl

I believe the original intention was to tax the market value of the land a structure sits on, not the structure itself. So in the case of apartments, presumably local density would have to be fairly high to make it a good place to build an apartment building there in the first place, and so the market value of the land would also be high; but the units would not be taxed directly at all, though their occupants would have to pay some fraction of the overall LVT. (Presumably that fraction would be higher for the penthouse.) You can see why the LVT is relatively density-friendly: the taller the building, the less tax paid by each resident.