The acronym itself might be new but the idea actually predates 2009, and is generally rejected in mainstream economics. For example, see Feldstein (1977) which shows that in fact even tax on pure land rents can be shifted onto other factors, which implies that all taxation can't be just shifted onto land.
This part addressed question if land tax can serve as a basis for funding whole government that was originally part of the OPs question but after this answer was written it was deleted:
Next, even though in public economics there exist a 'Ramsay Rule' which states that less elastic bases should be taxed more than more elastic ones (as they create less distortions), which should favor land, it is generally also agreed that it is difficult to value land and hence they are often not considered good source of revenue.
The best sources of revenue according to the literature are considered to be income (broadly defined) and consumption taxes, since they are able to raise much more revenue for the government. Income taxes have an added benefit that they contain information about people's ability which is useful information for the government that allows it to optimize taxes for most efficient redistribution given government's social welfare function. See the famous Mirlees review(s), Tax by Design and Dimensions of Tax Design for overview of modern literature on optimal taxation.