The May 14 proposal puts concrete brackets on a tax that has been threatened on and off for a decade. Here is what those brackets would mean for the actual Manhattan trophy inventory most affected — by the specific numbers.

The May 14 Hochul proposal defines distinct tax regimes for houses, condos, and co-ops, with one set of brackets for years one and two and a different methodology for year three onward. The math runs the same way for every building, but the actual exposure varies meaningfully depending on which configuration you own — and which building you own it in.

This piece runs the calculator math on representative apartments in eight named Manhattan buildings most affected by the proposal. Every figure is the surcharge proposed under the May 14 framework on a non-primary-residence basis. The Pied-à-Terre Tax Calculator reproduces the same math for any specific apartment.

A design feature worth understanding first

The May 14 proposal contains one structural detail that materially simplifies the math: at any given price point, the years-1-2 condo brackets (4.00% to 6.50% on the DOF-assessed value, which is roughly 20% of sale price) produce the same annual surcharge as the years-3+ house brackets (0.80% to 1.30% on full sale price). The two regimes are calibrated to converge by design.

A $25 million condo's DOF basis of $5 million produces $185,000 under the years-1-2 brackets. The same $25 million as a townhouse (or as a condo in year three under the revalued methodology) produces $185,000 under the house brackets. The proposal designed it this way to neutralize the methodology distinction — what changes between phases is not the magnitude of the surcharge but the durability of the underlying valuation assumption. The city's current §581 income-approach methodology produces a thin DOF basis that the higher condo rates compensate for; the year-3+ revaluation methodology is expected to produce something closer to sale price, at which point the lower house brackets produce the same dollar figure.

What this means for the math below: the annual surcharge is essentially constant across the five-year program window for any given apartment, and the five-year cumulative is just five times the annual figure. There is no "spike then settle" arc to model. The number is the number.

Trophy condos — the heaviest exposure

The apartments most affected by the proposal sit in the post-2014 trophy condominium tier on the south end of Central Park and along 57th Street. The annual figures are substantial.

Central Park Tower — PH107 ($117.39M, June 2024 recording). Annual surcharge approximately $1,386,000. Five-year cumulative approximately $6.93 million. The largest single-apartment exposure in the documented Manhattan condo inventory.

220 Central Park South — Unit 45A ($82.5M off-market, April 2025). Annual surcharge approximately $932,500. Five-year cumulative approximately $4.66 million.

The Plaza — Unit 1109 ($65.84M off-market, October 2023). Annual surcharge approximately $715,855. Five-year cumulative approximately $3.58 million.

432 Park Avenue — Unit 78 ($52.5M, February 2026). Annual surcharge approximately $542,500. Five-year cumulative approximately $2.71 million.

Central Park Tower — Unit 121 ($47.47M, November 2025). Annual surcharge approximately $477,100. Five-year cumulative approximately $2.39 million.

One57 — Full-floor 86 ($38.8M, July 2024). Annual surcharge approximately $364,400. Five-year cumulative approximately $1.82 million.

220 Central Park South — Unit 32A ($37.25M, February 2026). Annual surcharge approximately $344,250. Five-year cumulative approximately $1.72 million.

15 Central Park West — 12C + studio bundle ($24.78M, February 2026). Annual surcharge approximately $182,700. Five-year cumulative approximately $913,500.

For context: a typical buyer paying $50 million for a Manhattan condo today is signing up for closing costs of roughly 4–6% (mansion tax, mortgage recording tax, title insurance, attorney). The 5-year pied-à-terre exposure at that price point adds another approximately $2.55 million — call it another 5% on top of the closing stack, or roughly 1% of purchase price per year for a non-resident holding.

Townhouses — the cleaner case

Townhouses pay under the house brackets (0.80% to 1.30%) on sale price from day one, with no DOF conversion and no methodology phase change. The math is the cleanest of the three regimes.

• $5M townhouse: $0 (exactly at threshold). 5-year: $0.
• $10M townhouse: $40,000/year. 5-year: $200,000.
• $15M townhouse: $80,000/year. 5-year: $400,000.
• $25M townhouse: $185,000/year. 5-year: $925,000.
• $40M townhouse: $370,000/year. 5-year: $1.85 million.

For the East Side and West Village townhouse market in particular — where pied-à-terre ownership is common among long-term out-of-state holders — these figures define the new carrying-cost arithmetic if the proposal passes.

Co-ops — different inventory, same math, different exposure profile

The proposal applies the same condo brackets to co-ops in years one and two and the same house brackets in years three onward. The mechanical math is identical to condos. The behavioral pattern is different.

Most tier-one Manhattan co-ops are already structurally non-pied-à-terre: 740 Park, 998 Fifth, 1040 Fifth, and most of the CPW prewars enforce primary-residence requirements at the board level. The proposal's exemption paths (primary residence, family-member occupation) cover most of the inventory in these buildings. Where the surcharge would actually bite is the smaller subset of more pied-à-terre-flexible co-ops:

• The Pierre cooperative residences (795 Fifth Avenue). The August 2025 closing of unit 2501 at $13.92M and unit 2508 at $10.08M would translate to approximately $71,400 and $40,600 in respective annual surcharge if held on a non-resident basis. Five-year exposure of approximately $357,000 and $203,000.

• The Chatsworth (344 West 72nd Street). The UWS pre-war co-op operating under condo-like rules and explicitly accommodating pied-à-terre buyers. A $5M apartment here lands exactly at the threshold ($0 surcharge); a $10M apartment would face approximately $40,000/year, $200,000 over five years.

• The Carlyle (35 East 76th Street). The hotel-residence cooperative whose entry-tier inventory ($1.2M to $2M for the smallest one-bedrooms) falls below the threshold, but whose upper-floor inventory (PH3407 traded at $11M in March 2026) would face approximately $48,000/year, $240,000 over five years.

The structural takeaway: in most Manhattan co-ops, the proposal's effective bite is small because the board-level pied-à-terre restrictions already limit the inventory available to non-resident buyers. The exposure concentrates in the condo trophies and the more flexible co-ops above.

What it means for transactions

Sellers. Any apartment in the affected band that comes to market between now and the proposal's resolution is being priced and marketed inside a policy uncertainty window. Prospective buyers are already adjusting offers in anticipation. Pricing discipline matters more than at any other point in the recent cycle; sellers who push above market on the assumption of pre-proposal pricing should expect extended marketing arcs.

Buyers. The five-year cumulative exposure is a direct subtraction from the holding-period economics on any non-resident purchase. For a buyer planning a long-term primary-residence acquisition, the proposal does not apply — but the proof requirements (primary-residence documentation, family occupation, executed lease) are worth understanding before contract, because they will materially affect annual carry if the proposal passes.

Owners considering disposition. Several owners in the affected band have begun quiet inquiries about selling in advance of the proposal's resolution. Whether that is the right move depends on holding-period intent, what the alternative use of capital looks like, and the comparative carrying cost in other markets. We are running these analyses individually for clients in the consultation format.

A note on uncertainty

Every figure above is an estimate against the May 14 proposal as currently drafted. Three pieces of the proposal remain unresolved: the year-3+ valuation methodology (which would affect the magnitude of year-3+ figures if it diverges from the design intent), the exemption documentation requirements, and ultimately whether the bill passes the Legislature at all. The 20% DOF conversion ratio used for the condo/co-op calculations is a calibration estimate based on the city's current §581 methodology; the actual DOF figure for any specific apartment varies, and the calculation should be checked against the apartment's current property tax statement during diligence.

The proposal is not law. But the math is concrete enough now to be acted on — which is what this analysis, and the calculator, are for.

Best,

Corey Cohen Principal, The Roebling Team at Compass c.cohen@compass.com · 646.939.7375