Do Connecticut property tax exemptions for blind, veteran, or disabled owners lower a home's value when calculating a property tax relief credit?

Plain-English summary

The Connecticut Office of Policy and Management asked whether property tax exemptions for blind people, veterans, and people with disabilities could reduce a property's “present true and actual value” when calculating a state property tax relief credit. The Attorney General answered no. The exemptions reduced the property taxes qualifying owners paid, but they did not alter the property's fair market value.

The 1990 relief provision measured the credit against one and one-half percent of a residential parcel's present true and actual value. The opinion read that value as the property's fair market value under section 12-63. It explained that market value concerns the property itself, while the exemptions at issue depend on the owner's status. The opinion answered only how to determine value for this credit; it did not recalculate a particular owner's tax bill or credit.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

For qualifying property owners: Under the 1990 program analyzed, an exemption based on blindness, veteran status, or disability reduced taxes paid but did not lower the property's value used in the relief-credit calculation.

For assessors and program administrators: The Attorney General read “present true and actual value” as fair market value. The opinion said that owner-based exemptions under section 12-81 could not be used to change that valuation.

Common questions

Could a veteran's property tax exemption lower the value used for this Connecticut relief credit?

No. The opinion treated the veteran exemption as reducing taxes paid, while the credit formula used the property's fair market value.

Did the same answer apply to exemptions for blind or disabled owners?

Yes. The opinion addressed all three exemptions together and concluded that none could reduce the property's present true and actual value for the 1990 credit formula.

How did the opinion define a property's “present true and actual value”?

It quoted section 12-63, which treated that value, for property outside the listed farm, forest, and open-space categories, as fair market value rather than forced-sale value. The opinion cited a Connecticut court discussion of several valuation methods and said they concerned the property, not the owner's condition.

Background and statutory framework

The request concerned section 12-62d(h)(2), a 1990 property tax relief provision that measured the credit by comparing residential property tax with one and one-half percent of the parcel's present true and actual value. The Attorney General narrowed the request to whether exemptions under section 12-81 could enter the value calculation.

The opinion drew its valuation rule from section 12-63: for property other than the listed farm, forest, and open-space land, present true and actual value meant fair market value, not the result of a forced or auction sale. The opinion quoted Uniroyal Inc. v. Board of Tax Review on sales evidence and alternative valuation methods. It concluded that every such method measures the property's value, while the exemptions turn on the owner's circumstances.

Citations and references

The opinion discusses Conn. Gen. Stat. sections 12-62d(h)(2), 12-81, and 12-63 and quotes Uniroyal Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 174 Conn. 380, 385-86 (1978). The official HTML renders the section symbol as “e” in several citations; the original-text section preserves that rendering.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1990-formal-opinions/mr-anthony-v-milano-secretary-office-of-policy-1990044-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticu

Original opinion text

Mr. Anthony V. Milano, Secretary, Office of Policy, 1990-044 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

December 20, 1990

Mr. Anthony V. Milano

Secretary, Office of Policy

and Management

80 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Secretary Milano:

In your letter of October 12, 1990, you posed several questions regarding the property tax relief program in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d. From discussions with your staff, we have been informed that the only question which we need answer concerns the proper interpretation of l989 Conn. Pub. Acts 89-251, e 192(h)(2), codified as Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2). This section provides, in pertinent part, for a plan of property tax relief

in which the property tax credit applicable to each eligible parcel of residential property shall be determined as the amount by which the property tax applicable to such parcel of residential property exceeds one and one-half percent of the present true and actual value of such property.

Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2) (emphasis added).

Specifically, you ask whether exemptions to the property tax granted to the blind, veterans, and the disabled in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-81 may be applied in determining "the present true and actual value" of property for purposes of the credit granted in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2). For the following reasons, it is our opinion that such exemptions may not be considered in determining the present true and actual value of property.

The exemptions contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-81 reduce the actual property taxes that qualifying individuals pay. Those exemptions, however, do not reduce "the present true and actual value" of the property subject to the property tax. Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-63 provides that the present true and actual value of property other than farm land, forest land, and open space "shall be deemed by all assessors and boards of tax review to be the fair market value thereof and not its value at a forced or auction sale."

The term "fair market value" is equally well understood.

Fair market value is generally best ascertained by reference to market sales. New Haven Water Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 166 Conn. 232, 236, 348 A.2d 641; Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 162 Conn. 77, 87, 291 A.2d 715; Sibley v. Middlefield, 143 Conn. 100, 107, 120 A.2d 77. Where this method is unavailable, however, other means are to be found by which to determine value. Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Hartford, 99 Conn. 329, 337, 122 A. 91. A variety of such alternative methods for calculation of "true and actual value" have been approved by this court: use of the cost of reproduction with an adjustment for depreciation; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Monroe, 149 Conn. 450, 452, 181 A.2d 118; use of the original property cost less depreciation; Bridgeport Gas Co. v. Stratford, 153 Conn. 333, 335, 216, A.2d 439; Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Stratford, 139 Conn. 388, 393, 94 A.2d 1; and the capitalization of actual income approach; Somers v. Meriden, 119 Conn. 5, 7-8, 174 A. 184. "As a rule, however, '[n]o one method is controlling; consideration should be given to them all, if they have been utilized, in arriving at the value of the property.' Sibley v. Middlefield, supra, 107." New Haven Water Co. v. Board of Tax Review, supra, 237.

Uniroyal Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 174 Conn. 380, 385-86 (1978).

While a number of methods may be used to determine fair market value, they all relate to the value of the property itself, not the condition of the owner. The exemptions in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-81 for the blind, veterans, and the disabled are totally unrelated to the fair market value of the property and, accordingly, may not be considered in determining its present true and actual value for purposes of the tax credit authorized by Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-62d(h)(2).

Very truly yours,

CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

John G. Haines

Assistant Attorney General

CNR/JGH/bjg