本文基于宪法学视角考察房产税的制度改革，并围绕上海、重庆两地试行办法对“个人所有非营业用的房产免税”条款的突破展开制度探索。笔者期望借助此项研究能够达致以下两个目标：其一，以宪法学思维重新审视中国的房产税制度改革，在谋求征税权与财产权平衡的基础上，对房产税的制度框架进行新的可行的构建；其二，通过分析房产税制度生成路径与法律规范相背离的实践，探讨在中国税制改革语境下完善房产税立法的具体途径。本文是立足于房产税制度改革框架构建的问题意识而作出的一种理论上的尝试。首先，文章论述了公共利益是税收限制财产权的宪法缘由，进而从分析房产税制度改革所欲实现的公共利益入手，将改革的目标具体化为两个方面：调节收入分配和筹集财政收入。接着文章探讨了房产税改革的两个制度自洽问题，具体包括：土地使用权征收财产税的可行性问题，与城镇土地使用税存在的非必要性问题。然后，文章进一步描述了房产税制度设计的具体框架，并尝试说明：对一套商品住房免除房产税是基于保障性住房供应不足现实背景下的一种制度妥协。继而，由于保障性住房不纳税的理由是住房的生存权保障，那么，商品住房分担保障性职能后，其同样可以援引生存权保障进行税收减免。从这个意义上来说，就免除一套商品住房的赋税而言，房产税税收减免的前提与标准均应限定为“自有自居”。同时，为保证房产税基于房产这一特定财产上的调节收入分配目标的实现，在进一步明确保障性住房的供应对象与阶梯型供应方式的前提下，对“个人所有非营业用的房产”所筹的房产税税款可专项用于保障性住房建设。当然，制度构想的实现有赖于国家从立法层面予以规定。因此，文章最后通过对两地试行办法的生成路径进行的合规性分析，阐述了中国房产税立法体系存在的问题，并立足于权利保障与人民主权的角度，为房产税制度框架的立法生成路径的完善提供了应对之策。

This article focuses on the reform of real estate tax system based on the perspective of constitutional law, and explores around the breakthrough of the “tax exemption for all non-business real estates owned by individuals” clause of the Interim Measures in Shanghai and Chongqing. The author intends this research to achieve the following two goals: Firstly, re-examining the reform of real estate tax system in China with constitutional thinking, and on the basis of seeking the balance between taxation and property rights, the new feasible framework of real estate tax will be constructed. Secondly, by analyzing the practice that the generation path of the real estate tax system doesn’t match the legal norms, discussing the specific ways to improve the real estate tax legislation in the context of China's tax reform.This article is a theoretical attempt based on the problem consciousness of the construction of the reform framework of the real estate tax system. First, the article holds that the public interest is the constitutional reason for tax restrictions on property rights, and then, rested on the analysis of the public interest to be realized by the reform of the real estate tax system, the goal of the reform is embodied in two aspects: regulating income distribution and raising fiscal revenue. After that, the article discusses the two institutional self-consistency issues of the real estate tax reform, including: the feasibility of land use rights to levy property tax, and the non-essential problems of urban land use tax. Next, the article further describes the specific framework of the real estate tax system, and attempts to explain: the exemption of real estate tax on a set of commodity housing is based on an institutional compromise under the background of insufficient supply of government-supported housing. And, because the reason for the non-taxation of government-supported housing is the guarantee of the right to survival, therefore, commodity housing can also invoke the guarantee of the right to survival to tax relief for “a set of housing”. In this sense, in terms of exempting the real estate tax on a set of commodity housing, the premises and standards for tax reduction both could be “owner-living housing”. At the same time, for the specific property of real estate, in order to ensure the real estate tax to achieve the goal of regulating income distribution, under the premise of further clarifying the supply targets and supply modes of government-supported housing, those taxes raised based on “real estate owned by individuals for non-business purposes” can be used exclusively for the construction of government-supported housing. Of course, the realization of the framework depends on national legislation. So, at the end of the article, by analyzing the generation path of the Interim Measures in Shanghai and Chongqing, this article expounds the problems existing in the legislative system of China's real estate tax, and provides countermeasures based on the perspective of rights protection and people's sovereignty.