If the state takes my home through eminent domain and I have to buy a new one, can my Amendment 79 senior property tax cap follow me to the new house at the old assessed value?

Subject

Whether the Amendment 79 senior/disabled property tax cap follows a taxpayer who is forced to sell their home through eminent domain and purchases a replacement.

Plain-English summary

A legislator described a 69-year-old constituent whose home was taken by a state agency through eminent domain. He bought a smaller replacement home on a similarly sized lot, but its higher assessment doubled his property taxes. She asked whether Amendment 79 could keep the new home's assessment at the old home's level and what could be done for seniors in that situation.

The AG answered the first question in two parts. Amendment 79 does cap assessment of a new principal residence purchased by someone at least 65 or disabled. The cap starts at the new home's assessed value on the purchase date, or a later value if it drops. It does not transfer the former home's assessment to the replacement. The opinion quotes the constitutional rule: the new homestead is assessed based on "the lower of the assessed value as of the date of purchase or construction or a later assessed value." Nothing in the amendment or the eminent-domain protections cited permits a carryover, even after a forced sale.

On the second question, the AG declined to advise how an individual might reduce taxes. He said the General Assembly can pass legislation to assist seniors forced to sell their homes, but expressly declined to evaluate the constitutionality or effect of any proposal without seeing its language.

What this means for you

Homeowners buying a replacement

If you are at least 65 or disabled when you buy a new principal residence, the new property's assessed value on the purchase date sets the Amendment 79 ceiling, subject to a later decrease. The prior home's lower assessed value cannot be transferred under the laws this opinion addresses. The AG made no finding about the constituent's valuation beyond the facts presented by the legislator.

County assessors

Apply the purchase-date rule to an eligible owner's new principal residence. A forced sale of the prior home does not change the rule in Amendment 79. The opinion does not resolve a dispute over how the new property's purchase-date assessed value was calculated.

Legislators

The AG says legislation may be proposed to assist seniors displaced by forced sales. He did not approve a carryover, tax credit, or other specific remedy. He must review proposed language before assessing its constitutionality or effect. The opinion's footnote cites Wells v. Purcell and Jones v. Mears for the general principle that state or federal constitutional limits constrain legislative power; it does not decide how that principle applies to a future bill.

Common questions

Does the senior assessment cap apply to the new home?
Yes. For someone already at least 65 or disabled when purchasing a principal residence, Amendment 79, § 1(d)(1)(A), caps its assessed value at the purchase-date amount or a later lower amount.

Can an eminent-domain taking preserve the former home's assessed value? No. The AG found no carryover rule in Amendment 79 or in the eminent-domain protections he cited.

Does the opinion decide whether the government paid enough for the taken home? No. It notes that property owners have rights and protections when the government uses eminent domain, including constitutional just compensation. It does not evaluate this constituent's compensation.

Did the AG say a particular legislative fix would be constitutional? No. He said he could not assess the constitutionality or effect of potential legislation without reviewing its proposed language.

Legal basis in the opinion

Amendment 79, § 1(d)(1)(A), governs a principal residence purchased or built by a person already at least 65 or disabled. Subsections (B) and (C) set different starting dates for someone who turns 65 or becomes disabled while owning the home, and for eligible owners as of January 1, 2001. The AG applied the purchase rule to the replacement home.

The opinion cites Ark. Const. art. 2, § 22, and A.C.A. §§ 18-15-103 and 27-67-317 as examples of eminent-domain protections. It says none permits moving one homestead's assessment to another. The AG declined to give individual tax-planning advice under A.C.A. § 25-16-701.

Source

• Official Arkansas Attorney General opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/ (Opinion No. 2024-083, January 22, 2025; official four-page PDF, including footnotes)

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2024-083

January 22, 2025

The Honorable Robin Lundstrum
State Representative
Post Office Box 14
Elm Springs, Arkansas 72728

Dear Representative Lundstrum:

I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on the proper interpretation of Amendment 79 to the Arkansas Constitution, which caps assessments of principal places of residence for taxpayers who are 65 years of age or older. You state that one of your 69-year-old constituents lost his real property—his residence—when a state agency took it by eminent domain. The constituent subsequently purchased a smaller residence on a similarly sized lot, but his new property has a higher assessed value than his old property, doubling his real property taxes. You believe that “the intent of [Amendment 79] in a forced sale situation [is] to keep the assessment on the new property at the level of the old, forced sale property.”

Against this background, you ask the following questions:

1. When an Arkansas taxpayer is forced to sell his or her residence through eminent domain
  or other legal process, should the real property taxes associated and related to the new
  residence be frozen or set at levels that are subject to and consistent with Amendment 79
  to the Arkansas Constitution?

   Brief response: The real property taxes associated with the new residence are subject to
                   Amendment 79, and they should be set at levels that are consistent with
                   that amendment. But Amendment 79 does not set the property value of
                   the new residence at the same level as that of the former residence.

2. In light of this unique situation, can anything be done to protect senior Arkansans from
  similar occurrences involving their residences and a forced sale or transaction?

   Brief response: While this office is charged to render legal opinions on the proper
                   interpretation of state law, I cannot, in the context of an official opinion,
                   advise entities or individuals on accomplishing certain legal goals, like
                   lowering their tax obligations. I will note, however, that property owners
                   are legally entitled to certain rights and protections when the government

                            323 CENTER STREET, SU ITE 200
                            LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

The Honorable Robin Lundstrum
State Representative
Opinion No. 2024-083
Page 2

exercises the power of eminent domain. The General Assembly may also pass legislation to assist senior Arkansans who have been forced to sell their homes, but I cannot opine on the constitutionality or effect of any potential legislation without first reviewing the proposed language.

DISCUSSION

Question 1: When an Arkansas taxpayer is forced to sell his or her residence through eminent domain or other legal process, should the real property taxes associated and related to the new residence be frozen or set at levels that are subject to and consistent with Amendment 79 to the Arkansas Constitution?

Section 1 of Amendment 79 caps the annual rate at which real property tax assessments may increase,1 and it generally prevents homestead assessments from increasing if the taxpayer is disabled or is 65 years of age or older.2 Specifically, Amendment 79 addresses three scenarios in which real property tax assessments are capped for older or disabled homeowners:

1. When a person who is disabled or at least 65 years old constructs or purchases a home as a principal place of residence on or after January 1, 2001, the assessed value of the homestead is capped as of the date of purchase or construction, or at a later date if the assessed value drops.3

2. When a person owns a home as his or her principal place of residence and he or she becomes disabled or turns 65 years old, the assessed value of the homestead is capped on the person’s 65th birthday, the date he or she becomes disabled, or a later date if the assessed value drops.4

3. If a person owned a home as his or her principal place of residence on January 1, 2001, and was already disabled or at least 65 years old, the assessed value of the home is capped as of January 1, 2001, or at a later date if the assessed value drops.5

I gather that the property taxes on your constituent’s former home had been capped either on his 65th birthday, on the day he purchased or constructed that home (if he purchased or constructed it after he turned 65), or at some other later date if the value of that home decreased.6 Because your

1
See Ark. Const. amend. 79, § 1(b), (c).
2
See Id. § 1(d).
3
Id. § 1(d)(1)(A).
4
Id. § 1(d)(1)(B).
5
Id. § 1(d)(1)(C).
6
Because you only mention your constituent’s age and not his disability status, I assume that he qualifies for Amendment 79’s property tax relief solely because of his age.

The Honorable Robin Lundstrum
State Representative
Opinion No. 2024-083
Page 3

constituent is now 69 and has recently purchased another home as his primary residence, the property taxes on the new home will be capped at the rate assessed on the date of purchase, or at a later date if the assessed value drops.7 Therefore, the answer to your question is “yes.” The real property taxes associated with and related to the new residence should be consistent with Amendment 79.

However, given your statement about “the intent of the amendment in a forced sale situation,” I suspect you may mean to ask whether the assessed value of the new property should be frozen at the same assessed value as the old property. The answer to that question is “no.”

Under the rules used to interpret constitutional provisions, plain and unambiguous language must be given its obvious and common meaning.8 Here, Amendment 79 explicitly directs how a homestead’s value should be assessed when it is purchased by a taxpayer who is disabled or 65 years or older: the homestead “shall be assessed thereafter based on the lower of the assessed value as of the date of purchase or construction or a later assessed value.” 9 Nothing in the text of Amendment 79 suggests that a taxpayer can “carry over” the assessed value of a previous homestead to a new homestead, even when there is a forced sale. And while the laws governing the taking of private property through eminent domain contain numerous protections for property owners,10 none of these laws permit a taxpayer to transfer the assessed value from one homestead to another.

Question 2: In light of this unique situation, can anything be done to protect senior Arkansans from similar occurrences involving their residences and a forced sale or transaction?

To the extent you are asking for legal advice on how senior Arkansans can avoid having their tax obligations changed following a forced sale, your question falls outside the scope of an opinion from this office. While this office is charged to render legal opinions on the proper interpretation of state law, I cannot, in the context of an official opinion, advise entities or individuals on accomplishing certain legal goals, like lowering their tax obligations.11 But I will note that, as

7
See Ark. Const. amend. 79, § 1(d)(1)(A).
8
Johnson v. Wright, 2022 Ark. 57, at 6, 640 S.W.3d 401, 405; State v. Oldner, 361 Ark. 316, 326, 206 S.W.3d 818, 822 (2005). 9 Ark. Const. amend. 79, § 1(d)(1)(A).
10
See, e.g., Ark. Const. art. 2, § 22 (“The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use, without just compensation therefor.”); A.C.A. §§ 18-15-103 (setting forth a property owner’s “bill of rights”); 27-67-317 (entitling a landowner to an award of certain costs and fees in condemnation actions filed by the Arkansas Department of Transportation if the State failed to offer a certain amount of money as compensation).

See A.C.A. § 25-16-701 (prohibiting the Attorney General from engaging in the private practice of law); Ark. Att’y 11

Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 2008-098, 2007-188, 2006-089, 2006-086, 2005-044, 98-255.

The Honorable Robin Lundstrum
State Representative
Opinion No. 2024-083
Page 4

mentioned above, property owners are entitled to certain rights and protections when a government entity exercises the power of eminent domain.12

You may also be asking about potential legislation to address this issue. The General Assembly can pass legislation to assist senior Arkansans who have been forced to sell their homes.13 But I cannot opine on the constitutionality or effect of any potential legislation without first reviewing the proposed language.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

12
See supra note 10.
13
Because our state constitution is a statement of limitations on legislative power rather than a grant of authority, legislation is beyond the General Assembly’s authority only if it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by our state or federal constitutions. See Wells v. Purcell, 267 Ark. 456, 464, 592 S.W.2d 100, 105 (1979); Jones v. Mears, 256 825, 827–28, 510 S.W.2d 857, 859 (1974).