If you let out your home, or you live in a building where tourists come and go, this material is for you. In short, we set out what we measured, what happened when we reported it, and what should be done instead.

What did we measure?

There are currently 15,125 accommodation listings running in Budapest on Airbnb and Booking. Of these, 4,952 are unlicensed.¹ That is one listing in three.

To understand this you need to know what an NTAK number is. Every accommodation unit has a unique identifier. It is like a licence plate: every tax return is tied to it, and since 2023 it must be displayed in the listing. Anyone who does not display it, or displays a false one, cannot be traced.

This is how the 4,952 break down:

2,764 listings show a number that does not exist in the register
1,472 listings show no number at all
375 listings use someone else's number
123 listings contain data that contradicts itself
218 listings run with a valid number in Terézváros — where letting is banned

We are not guessing at these numbers. We compared three public databases: the district councils' accommodation registers, the NTAK register and the listings themselves. We call the system BPDB, and it can be recalculated at any time.

We counted conservatively. There are a further 1,402 listings that have a number but no valid classification. We did not include these, because some of them may simply be waiting for classification. If we counted them, the share would be 42 per cent rather than 34.

Why is this a problem for you?

If you let out your home lawfully:

Someone who pays no tax can charge less. The tax burden on short-term letting is roughly 12–15 per cent. On top of that, operating lawfully has its own costs: the tax returns, document scanning, data reporting, invoicing and accommodation classification all cost money and time. Someone operating unlawfully saves all of that too. That is how much they can undercut you by — and because of it you cannot raise your price either, since they push the whole market down.

Then the district steps in and caps the number of nights you may let. Except that the cap applies to you, not to them. They are not registered at all, so there is nothing to cap.

If you live in a building where a home is let out:

Someone who pays no tax is unlikely to take responsibility either. There are no house rules, no one to call at night, and no one to send somebody round if there is trouble. We, for instance, have a call-out service. Someone letting off the books does not.

We have not measured this, so we do not state it as fact. But it is logical, and it is what practice shows.

Who lets these homes out? Not big investors

The debate often sounds as if short-term letting were the business of large companies. The councils' own registers show otherwise: 15,062 permits are spread across 9,495 operators.²

97.5 per cent of operators have at most three properties, and they account for almost three-quarters of all properties. Every second property belongs to someone who has exactly one. In other words: families and one-person businesses.

1 property2-34-1011-50Above 50

BPDB · September 1, 2026

This matters because it is these operators who lose out from a ban — several thousand of them, independently of one another, with no common representation. The winner is the hotel industry, which is organised and concentrated. The study of the New York ban says so explicitly: the hotel industry spent an order of magnitude more on political influence than the platforms did.³ Hungarian hotels are tracked by the civic database nerhotel.hu, which collects properties linked to owners connected to the governing circle between 2010 and 2026, and lists 32 hotels in Budapest.⁴

And it is not only the hosts who lose

An average Budapest listing is let for 16.8 nights a month. With two guests that is 33.6 guest nights, which at the HCSO's average daily spend comes to roughly HUF 1.1 million of guest spending a month. Of this the accommodation charge is HUF 482,000, so about HUF 610,000 is spent elsewhere: in the café on the corner, the bakery, the restaurant, the taxi.⁵⁶

And it matters where that money stays. Hotel guests have breakfast in the hotel and often dinner too: according to the HCSO, 23.7 per cent of Hungarian hotel revenue is food and drink.⁷ That money never reaches the bakery on the corner.

A Hungarian peer-reviewed study measured exactly this in Budapest and around Lake Balaton: Airbnb guests spend 74 per cent of their non-accommodation budget on local goods and services, hotel guests 47 per cent.⁸ This is a proportion, not a forint amount, and the sample is small, but the direction is clear.

This is why turnover at Terézváros restaurants fell by 30 per cent. Every home that closed took several hundred thousand forints of monthly demand with it.

The guest count here is an assumption, and a conservative one: listings can on average accommodate more than four people. The HCSO figure is a national average and includes the accommodation charge.

What happened in Terézváros?

In Terézváros short-term letting has been banned since 1 January 2026. Zero nights. The council communicated it as a success.

Today 864 listings run in the district. Of these, 661 are unlicensed.

In other words, three-quarters of the accommodation still available after the ban is unlicensed. Those who followed the rules closed down. Those who did not are still open. What is more, they now also have a tax advantage over anyone operating legally in the next district.

And what did it cost the district?

The guests disappeared. According to HCSO data, published in Parliament's own bulletin, between January and March:⁹

Thousand guest nights	2025	2026
Hotels	136.2	158.9
Airbnb-type accommodation	98.3	3.4
Total	234.5	162.3

HotelsPrivate and other accommodation

The number of guest nights in Budapest District VI, January–March. Hotels grew by 22.7 thousand nights, while 94.9 thousand were lost from private accommodation. Source: HCSO, from Parliament's Infojegyzet 2026/6.

Hotels did indeed grow, by 22.7 thousand nights. But 94.9 thousand were lost from private accommodation. Hotels absorbed less than a quarter of the loss.

You often hear that if Airbnbs are closed down, tourists will go to hotels anyway. This is not true. Three-quarters of the guests simply went to another district or another city. Only a small share of those who choose private accommodation would take a hotel instead: it is a different market.

Nor is this specific to Hungary. A 2022 American economics study measured precisely how many would have booked a hotel had Airbnb not existed: between half and seventy per cent of guests would not have booked one, and in peak season 87 per cent.¹⁰ The Terézváros three-quarters falls exactly within that range.

And how much money goes with it? According to the HCSO a foreign visitor spends an average of HUF 32,600 a day here.⁶ Multiplied by the 72,200 lost nights, that is roughly HUF 2.35 billion in a single quarter. It includes the accommodation charge and it is a national average, so it is an order-of-magnitude estimate. But even so, the order of magnitude speaks for itself.

The tax revenue disappeared. The district's tourist tax revenue in the first half of 2026 was HUF 949 million. A year earlier it was HUF 1,229 million. The shortfall is HUF 280 million in six months.

Restaurants got into trouble. According to the Hungarian Hospitality Employers' Association, turnover at the district's restaurants, cafés and bars fell by 30 per cent.¹¹ As one owner put it: "Nearly a third of our turnover has gone, but the bills and the district taxes have not fallen by 30%."

Short-term letting provides work not only for hosts. Cleaners, laundries, transfer drivers and maintenance staff live off it too. They lost significant income to the ban as well.

And it did not help housing. No 864 tenants moved into the place of the 864 listings that are still running.

And if we step back a little: according to the HCSO's final census data, 160,723 homes in Budapest have no one living in them, and 95,000 of those stand genuinely empty and unused.¹²¹³ 10,703 homes are let short-term: for every short-let home there are nearly nine genuinely empty ones.¹⁴ Meanwhile more homes house an office or a surgery (about 13,000) than there are lawful short-term rentals (6,703).¹⁵ And prices are rising even where there is virtually no Airbnb: at the end of 2025 prices rose least in Budapest (21 per cent) and most in villages (37).¹⁶ The housing problem is not caused by short-term letting, and a ban does not solve it.

Has it gone this way elsewhere?

In September 2023 New York effectively banned short-term letting.¹⁷ Supply fell by more than 90 per cent: 38,500 homes disappeared.¹⁸

Rents did not fall. Median rent in Manhattan hit a record in the summer of 2025. What did rise was hotel prices: by USD 14–19 a night, according to a 2025 study. Hotel industry revenue grew by USD 2–3 billion in eighteen months.³ Not because more guests came, but because it got more expensive.

Restaurant turnover fell there too, by roughly 10 per cent.¹⁹

Several cities have since turned back. Berlin relaxed its restrictions in 2018 and in exchange made displaying the identifier mandatory.²⁰ In Amsterdam the court ruled that the blanket ban had been unlawful, and the city withdrew EUR 400,000 in fines.²¹ Lisbon²² and Edinburgh²³ eased their rules in 2025.

We reported it. What happened?

In May this year we noticed that four listings by strangers were running under a client's NTAK number. The number had been deleted in 2025, yet there it was in four listings, belonging to people with no connection to it.

It is rather as if someone were driving around town on your licence plate.

We assumed this must obviously be reportable somewhere. We wrote to four authorities.

The accommodation classification body wrote that this was not their business, they only classify. They sent us to NTAK and the district clerk.

NTAK wrote that they only collect data and have no regulatory powers. They cannot impose penalties, nor can they have listings removed. They sent us to the district clerk.

The tax authority wrote that it was outside their competence. They sent us to the council. They also informed us that they do not accept reports by email; a form has to be filled in.

To the district clerk's office we handed over the four listings. With links, identifiers, addresses and screenshots. The answer was one sentence: the numbers "have been corrected". Whether proceedings were opened or a penalty imposed, we have had no information since.

In June NTAK confirmed in writing that the district clerk could impose a fine and could even have the property closed. But it also wrote that the clerk cannot have a listing removed.

Then Booking sorted it out in six days

In July someone living in a condominium wrote to us. At their residents' meeting it had emerged that, in their words, there is more illegal accommodation than legal. They did not turn to an authority: they reported the listings on Booking's own form. All of them were removed within ten days.

So we reported the two Booking listings as well. We submitted them on 24 July. On 30 July the reply came: both breached the policy and had therefore been removed.

All three authorities we approached referred us to the district clerk. The clerk could impose a fine but cannot have a listing removed. Only the platform can do that — and the platform collects no tax and imposes no fines.

Three months, five authorities, and to this day we do not know whether proceedings were opened. Then six days with a web form, and at least the removal succeeded.

The fourth listing, on Airbnb, ended differently: there it turned out to be a typing error. The operator had mistyped the last digit of their own number and has since corrected it. We set this out because we do not want to claim more than is true. What is thought-provoking, though, is that a single mistyped digit meant a property ran for months under someone else's identifier, and no one noticed.

What can we learn from this?

The authorities are not lazy. The system is badly designed.

Whoever can remove cannot penalise. The platform acts fast, but it collects no tax and imposes no fines.

Whoever can penalise cannot remove. The district clerk is the only authority, but cannot have the listing taken down. Those who can remove it are Airbnb and Booking.com. The clerk does not even know who is advertising, because Airbnb hides the exact address.

And it is not worth their while either. A council can prove an irregularity through a test purchase. That establishes the tax on a single booking, which is a few thousand forints. The maximum fine for private accommodation is HUF 200,000.²⁴ The working hours spent on the inspection often cost more than that.

There are 23 districts, and no clerk is big enough to negotiate with Airbnb. Terézváros tried. It got stuck.

What should be done?

1. Unlicensed hosts first, restrictions afterwards

As long as nobody can see a third of the supply, every restriction cuts back the wrong half. Let us first uncover the unlawful operations. Then let us look at whether any problem remains that has to be handled with a ban. Perhaps there is none.

2. One Budapest-level authority instead of 23 clerks

Two or three people are enough to hold the data and the platform relationship in one place. It would not take away the districts' powers, it would simply do for them what they have no capacity to do.

3. Request the historical booking data

If the platform releases an unlicensed host's bookings for the past three to four years, the unpaid taxes add up. From that point on, enforcement pays for itself. That is exactly what is missing today.

There is a legal basis: an EU regulation has been applicable since 20 May 2026.²⁵ It requires platforms to verify the identifier and report data monthly, and the state to operate a single digital entry point. A fair question is where Hungary stands on this.

4. Make the tourist tax uniform across Budapest

Today 23 districts calculate it in 23 ways. In some it is 4 per cent of the accommodation charge, in others a fixed amount per guest night. Because of this Airbnb cannot collect it: you cannot build 23 rules into one booking flow.

If it were uniform, the platform would collect and remit it itself. Two things would follow. The tourist tax could not be evaded, because the money comes off at the moment of booking. And you would have less paperwork.

This works elsewhere. In France, when the rule became uniform, the tax collected in the same municipalities jumped from EUR 24 million to EUR 58 million.²⁶ Where there is no uniform rule, it does not work: in Germany Airbnb collects in just four cities, and Berlin, Hamburg and Munich are not among them.²⁷

And the amount does not have to be identical everywhere. Bratislava has 17 boroughs with two different rates. But a single decree sets them, and there Airbnb has collected automatically since 2021.²⁸

5. We will hand over our system, free of charge

BPDB is built and running. We offered it to two districts. One said it had a contract with an outside company. Through a freedom-of-information request we established that it pays HUF 381,000 gross every six months for this.²⁹ In that same district 812 unlicensed listings are running. The other district said it does not negotiate with market players.

How much money is at stake?

The estimated annual revenue of unlicensed Airbnb listings is HUF 16.5 billion. From this, two taxes alone — the tourist tax and the tourism development contribution — come to HUF 1.3 billion a year. That is what we can measure.

The Booking side can be estimated on top. There we do not measure revenue, but we do measure the number of listings, and we can also see which Booking listing is the same home as an Airbnb one, so as not to count it twice. On that basis the two platforms together come to about HUF 25 billion a year. Then there is the itemised flat-rate tax, at HUF 150,000 per room per year.³⁰

All together, roughly HUF 3 billion a year in tax goes unpaid. Over three to four years, HUF 9–12 billion. And that still does not include VAT, building tax and fines.

What can you do?

If someone else is advertising with your NTAK number: report it to the district clerk, and at the same time on the platform's own reporting form. In our experience the platform is faster.

If unlicensed accommodation operates in your building: Booking has a public reporting form, and that is the place to start. Describe the suspicion and attach a screenshot of the listing and of the council register. In the example above they acted within ten days. Airbnb has no such form: there is only the neighbourhood reporting interface, which is essentially for noise and nuisance, not for a property operating without a permit.

If you are a host: check that the NTAK number appears correctly in your own listing. If it is missing, add it. It has been mandatory for two and a half years, and such listings may come under scrutiny in future.

Why are we doing this?

We are not an authority and we do not want to play volunteer police. We do not release names and we do not denounce anyone in public.

We are defending our own market. We manage 180 homes in Budapest, every one of them legally, with all taxes paid. Our interest goes only this far: that this should not be a competitive disadvantage, and that regulation should not punish those who follow the rules instead of those who do not.

If you have questions, or experience of your own, write to us: hello@guest.guru

All figures come from the BPDB measurement of September 1, 2026 unless stated otherwise. The detailed data and the correspondence with the authorities are available on request.

Sources

Links were checked on 13 August 2026. The academic publishers' sites (ScienceDirect, Wiley, Emerald) may require a subscription for the full text; the citation and the DOI identify the study without them.

BPDB (Budapest Database), GuestGuru Kft.'s own market database. A merge of the district councils' accommodation registers, the NTAK register and listings on Airbnb and Booking.com. Queried on 12 August 2026.↩
The public accommodation registers of the Budapest district councils, loaded into BPDB. 12,445 permits, assigned to 8,081 named providers. Queried on 13 August 2026.An aggregation based on provider names. It groups by identical names, so it cannot see ownership links: actual concentration may be higher than this, not lower.↩
Anastasi, S. C.; Marsella, A.; Melo, V.; Stephenson, E. F.; Wagner, G. A. (2025): Short-term rental bans and the hotel industry: Evidence from New York city. European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 89. Article ID: PII S0176-2680(25)00085-0. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268025000850 ↩
nerhotel.hu, "Kinél cseng a kassza?" [Whose till is ringing?]. A civic database of accommodation and hospitality venues attributed to owners linked to the governing circle, with ownership links citing K-Monitor's public database. The database holds 455 entries, of which 149 are in Budapest and, within those, 32 are hotels. Queried on 13 August 2026. https://www.nerhotel.hu/A database built by a civic organisation, not official statistics. The ownership links are journalistic and public-data identifications, not official findings. It should be cited accordingly.↩
AirDNA estimated last-twelve-months revenue (revenue_ltm) for the active Airbnb listings flagged as unlicensed in BPDB. Queried on 12 August 2026.AirDNA estimates rather than measures; the error of the estimate is unknown.↩
HCSO STADAT 27.2.1.2: Number of foreign trips to Hungary and the related expenditure by length of stay, quarterly. Q1 2026, multi-day trips: 1,492 thousand trips, 4,496 thousand days spent, HUF 146,787 million of expenditure, i.e. HUF 32,600 per day. Updated on 5 June 2026. https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/tur/hu/tur0043.htmlA national average across all foreign multi-day visitors, and it includes accommodation charges. Q1 is the weakest season. A visitor day and a guest night in commercial accommodation are not the same concept, so the value derived from this is an order-of-magnitude estimate.↩
HCSO STADAT 27.8.1.9: Gross revenue of commercial accommodation establishments by type. Hotels, 2019: accommodation charges HUF 291,852 million, food and drink 117,583, other 86,029, total 495,464 million. Food and drink is 23.7 per cent. https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/tur/hu/tur0023.htmlAn archived table covering 2001–2021, no longer updated. We use 2019 because the 2020–2021 data are distorted by the pandemic; the ratio, however, is stable, at 23.5 per cent in 2021 as well.↩
Karimov, A. – Kamann, D-J. F. – Gyurácz-Németh, P.: Local spending patterns of tourists in Greater Budapest and the Lake Balaton tourism regions. An exploratory study on the non-accommodation budget across Airbnb and hotel guests. Turizmus Bulletin, vol. XXV, no. 4 (2025), pp. 4–13. DOI: 10.14267/TURBULL.2025v25n4.1. Student's t-test: t = −6.775, df = 101, p < 0.001. https://doi.org/10.14267/TURBULL.2025v25n4.1The study measures a PROPORTION, not an amount: what share of non-accommodation spending goes on local goods and services. The authors themselves note that a smaller share of a larger budget may still be more in absolute terms. The sample is 103 people; it is exploratory research.↩
Csorba György: Rövid távú szálláskiadás 2 [Short-term rental 2]. Infojegyzet 2026/6, Office of the National Assembly, Information Service for Members of Parliament, 1 June 2026. Data source for Figure 2: HCSO Dissemination database, GB2012. https://www.parlament.hu/infoszolgThe Infojegyzet publishes the figure but does not link it to the Terézváros ban, and does not draw this conclusion from it. The data belongs to Parliament; the interpretation is ours.↩
Chiara Farronato – Andrey Fradkin: The Welfare Effects of Peer Entry: The Case of Airbnb and the Accommodation Industry. American Economic Review, 112(6): 1782-1817, 2022. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20180260. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180260 https://andreyfradkin.com/assets/airbnb_welfare_paper.pdf ↩
Eltűntek a turisták, bajban vannak a terézvárosi éttermek [The tourists are gone, Terézváros restaurants are in trouble]. Turizmus.com, 24 June 2026, based on a statement by the Hungarian Hospitality Employers' Association (MVI). https://turizmus.com/cikk/vendeglatas/terezvaros-ettermek-fprgalomcsokkenes-airbnb-tiltas-mvi-eltuntek-a-turistak ↩
HCSO 2022 census database, table WBL018, HU11 (Budapest): 961,061 dwellings, of which 800,338 occupied and 160,723 unoccupied (16.7%). Queryable without authentication. https://nepszamlalas2022.ksh.hu/adatbazis/The figure of 170,000 circulating in the press is the HCSO's 2023 preliminary release; the final database gives 160,723. Nationally the same correction went from 599,000 to 571,997.↩
GuestGuru: Budapest's empty homes. The full derivation of the housing-stock breakdown, its methodology and downloadable charts. /en/feketezok/ures-lakasok ↩
BPDB, measurement deduplicated to unique NTAK identifiers, August 2026. The 14,602 dwelling-type Airbnb and Booking listings map to 9,415 unique properties (on average 1.55 listings per dwelling); at dwelling level there are 10,703 units let short-term, of which 6,703 are compliant and about 4,000 unlicensed (39%).The difference between the listing-level numbers (15,825 active listings, 5,374 unlicensed, 34%) and the dwelling-level ones is deduplication: the same dwelling may advertise on several platforms. The two levels must not be mixed.↩
HCSO 2016 microcensus, volume 7 (Housing conditions), table 3.3.2. Unoccupied dwellings in Budapest by use: 78,973 standing empty, 15,418 seasonally or secondarily occupied, 13,025 used for other purposes (as an office, surgery or shop). https://www.ksh.hu/mikrocenzus2016/docs/tablak/07/07_3_3.xlsThis is the only official survey of the use of unoccupied dwellings; the 2022 census no longer publishes this breakdown, so we carry the measured level forward.↩
HCSO: Housing market prices, house price index, Q4 2025. Annual increase: Budapest 21, county seats 24, smaller towns 23, villages 37 per cent. https://www.ksh.hu/s/kiadvanyok/lakaspiaci-arak-lakasarindex-2025-iv-negyedev/index.html ↩
Local Law 18 of 2022, New York City (Short-Term Rental Registration Law). Enforcement began on 5 September 2023. The law is applied by the city's Office of Special Enforcement. https://www.nyc.gov/site/specialenforcement/index.page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Law_18_of_2022The second link is a summary article, not a primary source. The official text of the law is available in the New York City Council's legislative records.↩
New York City short-term rental market after Local Law 18. Hospitality Net, 2025. https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4124666.html ↩
Kaihang Zhao – Tal Shoshani – Davide Proserpio: How Short-Term Rental Regulations Reshape Urban Spending: Evidence from New York City's Restaurant Sector. SSRN, 6 January 2026. Method: propensity score matching and difference-in-differences, SafeGraph transaction data, 3,220 restaurants, July 2022 – July 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6065366 https://www.realab.blog/p/when-airbnb-leaves-town-how-new-yorksA working paper, not peer-reviewed. The second link is a summary produced with the authors' involvement; the detailed methodological figures come from there.↩
Änderung des Zweckentfremdungsverbot-Gesetzes (ZwVbG). GÖRG, 11 April 2018. The amendment entered into force on 20 April 2018; displaying the registration number has been mandatory since 1 August 2018. https://www.goerg.de/de/aktuelles/veroeffentlichungen/11-04-2018/aenderung-des-zweckentfremdungsverbot-gesetzes-zwvbg ↩
Raad van State, judgment in cases 202102768/1/A3 and 202102675/1/A3, 31 May 2023. The housing act did not authorise the blanket ban imposed on three inner-city neighbourhoods. https://www.raadvanstate.nl/@137502/202102768-1-a3-202102675-1-a3-en/↩
Changes to the Lisbon Municipal Regulation on Local Lodging. PLMJ, December 2025. The amendment entered into force on 6 December 2025. https://www.plmj.com/en/knowledge/informative-notes/Changes-to-the-Lisbon-Municipal-Regulation-on-Local-Lodging/34253/↩
Councillors agree changes to Edinburgh's short-term lets licensing policy. City of Edinburgh Council, January 2025. https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/14148/councillors-agree-changes-to-edinburgh-s-short-term-lets-licensing-policy ↩
Act CLXIV of 2005 on Trade, and Government Decree 239/2009 (X. 20.) on the detailed conditions for pursuing accommodation service activities. https://njt.hu ↩
Regulation (EU) 2024/1028 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on data collection and data sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services. Applicable from 20 May 2026. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1028 ↩
Airbnb remits €58 million in tourist tax to French municipalities for 2019. Airbnb Newsroom, December 2019. https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-remits-e58-million-in-tourist-tax-to-french-municipalities-for-2019/A figure published by Airbnb. The 2018–2019 jump is a clean signal because the set of municipalities did not change in the meantime.↩
In what areas is occupancy tax collection and remittance by Airbnb available? Germany. Airbnb help centre, queried on 12 August 2026. The cities listed: Dresden, Dortmund, Frankfurt am Main, Wiesbaden. https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2285 ↩
Tourist tax. Bratislava.sk, queried on 12 August 2026. A single city decree with two bands: €3.50 in the Old Town and €3.00 in the other boroughs, per person per night. https://bratislava.sk/en/city-of-bratislava/taxes-and-levies/tourist-tax ↩
Freedom-of-information request to the Józsefváros council, summer 2026.↩
Act CXVII of 1995 on Personal Income Tax. From 1 January 2025 the itemised flat-rate tax for private individuals providing paying-guest accommodation is HUF 150,000 per habitable room per year in municipalities where the number of guest nights exceeded 2 million in the second year preceding the tax year. Budapest is such a municipality. https://njt.hu/jogszabaly/1995-117-00-00 https://nav.gov.hu/ado/szja/A_fizetovendeglatokat_erinto_valtozasokSection 57/A(4c) of the Act obliges the tax authority (NAV) to publish the list of affected municipalities by 31 January each year. In 2025 Budapest is the only entry on that list. A private individual may elect the itemised flat-rate tax for at most three properties; companies are taxed differently. The definition of a "habitable room" differs between NAV, NTAK and some district councils.↩