Did the Connecticut $3,000 property tax exemption for disabled veterans (§ 12-81(20)) require the veteran to have served during wartime, the way the parallel exemption in § 12-81(19) does?

Formal Opinion 2014-7: Connecticut's disabled veteran property tax exemption does not require wartime service

Plain-English summary

The Acting Commissioner of Veterans' Affairs asked whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-81(20), the property tax exemption for disabled veterans, required wartime service. The AG concluded it does not. The statute exempts up to $3,000 in property of "any resident of this state who has served, or is serving" in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, or Air Force, and who either has a VA disability rating of 10% or more (with the exemption amount keyed to the percentage and to age 65) or is receiving compensation for the service-connected loss of a leg, arm, or equivalent.

The text contains no wartime requirement. The AG relied on the plain-meaning rule (Town of Branford v. Santa Barbara) and the canon that courts will not supply omissions when statutory language is clear (Potvin v. Lincoln Service). The conclusion was reinforced by contrast with the adjoining § 12-81(19), which provides a separate $1,000 exemption and expressly requires wartime service. State v. Kevalis and Perry v. Perry establish that when the legislature includes a provision in one place and omits it from a similar place, the omission is taken as deliberate. The legislature, the opinion noted, is free to attach a wartime-service requirement to one exemption and not to another.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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.

Background and statutory framework

Connecticut's property tax exemption statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-81) contains a series of exemptions for veterans. Two were directly relevant here:

§ 12-81(19) exempts $1,000 of property of a resident who is "(a) ... a veteran of the armed forces in service in time of war," with similar wartime conditions in subsections (e) and (g). The wartime-service requirement is express.

§ 12-81(20) exempts up to $3,000 of property of "any resident of this state who has served, or is serving" in the named branches and who either:
- has a VA disability rating of 10% or more (the exemption amount steps up with the rating, with $3,000 available at age 65 or with a rating above 75%); or
- receives a pension, annuity, or compensation from the United States for "the loss in service of a leg or arm or that which is considered by the rules of the United States Pension Office or the Bureau of War Risk Insurance the equivalent of such loss."

Subsection (20) does not include the words "in time of war."

What the AG concluded at the time

Plain-meaning rule controls

The AG quoted Town of Branford v. Santa Barbara: statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute. Section 12-81(20) plainly limited the exemption to a Connecticut resident who "has served, or is serving" in a named branch and who met one of the disability criteria. There is no wartime qualifier. Per Potvin v. Lincoln Service, when statutory language is plain and unambiguous, courts will not supply an exception or limitation. The AG read the absence of wartime language as decisive.

Contrast with § 12-81(19) confirms the result

The AG reinforced the textual argument with State v. Kevalis: when one provision contains a given term and a parallel related provision omits it, the omission shows different legislative intent. Subsection (19) expressly imposes wartime service as a condition; subsection (20) does not. Per Perry v. Perry, the legislature knows how to convey its intent expressly. The choice to include the wartime requirement in (19) and exclude it from (20) was deliberate.

Policy is for the legislature

The opinion ended with a reminder that the legislature was free to attach the wartime requirement to one exemption and not another. If the legislature wanted both exemptions to require wartime service, it could amend (20) accordingly.

Common questions

Did the disability-rating threshold matter?

Yes. § 12-81(20) requires the veteran to have a VA disability rating of at least 10%. The exemption amount steps up with the rating: $1,500 (10-25%), $2,000 (25-50%), $2,500 (50-75%), $3,000 (over 75% or upon reaching age 65).

Could a peacetime veteran qualify under (20) and not under (19)?

Yes, that was precisely the point of the opinion. A disabled veteran who served entirely in peacetime would not qualify for the (19) wartime exemption but could qualify for the (20) disability-based exemption.

Did the AG opine on what counts as 'wartime' for (19) purposes?

No. The opinion only addressed (20) and used (19) for textual contrast. The definition of "wartime" for (19) was not at issue.

Could a municipality impose its own wartime requirement on (20)?

The opinion did not address this. § 12-81(20) is a state-mandated exemption applied at the municipal level by the assessor; municipalities generally cannot add eligibility conditions to a state-prescribed property tax exemption.

Citations

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-81(20) — disability-based veterans property tax exemption (no wartime requirement).
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-81(19) — separate veterans property tax exemption (express wartime requirement).
• Town of Branford v. Santa Barbara, 294 Conn. 803 (2010) — interpretation begins with statutory language.
• Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment Co., 298 Conn. 620 (2010) — courts will not supply exceptions to plain language.
• State v. Kevalis, 313 Conn. 590 (2014) — omission from a parallel statute shows different intention.
• Perry v. Perry, 312 Conn. 600 (2014) — legislature knows how to convey intent expressly.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ag/opinions/2014/2014-007_property_exemption_military-pdf.pdf?rev=13f30b7b79d045f8ad96a6da2f9625d3

Original opinion text

55 Elm Street
GEORGE JEPSEN
P.O. Box 120
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Hartford, CT 06141-0120

Office of the Attorney General
State of Connecticut
November 3, 2014

Joseph T. Perkins
Acting Commissioner
287 West Street
Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067

Dear Commissioner Perkins:

You have asked for this office's opinion as to whether Connecticut General Statutes § 12-81(20) requires an applicant to have served in the armed services during wartime in order to qualify for the property tax exemption created by that subsection. I conclude that § 12-81(20) does not require an applicant to have served in time of war because the text of § 12-81(20) states no such requirement.

Connecticut General Statutes § 12-81(20) states in relevant part:

Subject to the provisions hereinafter stated, property not exceeding three thousand dollars in amount shall be exempt from taxation, which property belongs to, or is held in trust for, any resident of this state who has served, or is serving, in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or Air Force of the United States and (1) has a disability rating by the Veterans' Administration of the United States amounting to ten per cent or more of total disability, provided such exemption shall be fifteen hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is between ten per cent and twenty-five per cent; two thousand dollars in any case in which such rating is more than twenty-five per cent but not more than fifty per cent; twenty-five hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is more than fifty per cent but not more than seventy-five per cent; and three thousand dollars in any case in which such person has attained sixty-five years of age or such rating is more than seventy-five per cent; or (2) is receiving a pension, annuity or compensation from the United States because of the loss in service of a leg or arm or that which is considered by the rules of the United States Pension Office or the Bureau of War Risk Insurance the equivalent of such loss.

"Our inquiry in any issue of statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute at issue." Town of Branford v. Santa Barbara, 294 Conn. 803, 810 (2010). "When a statute's plain and unambiguous language indicates that the statute is intended to have . . . [a broad] application, we will not supply an exception or limitation to that statute." Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment Co., 298 Conn. 620, 638 (2010). Section 12-81(20) plainly and unambiguously states that an exemption applicant must only be "any resident of this state who has served, or is serving" in a branch of our armed forces. Section 12-81(20) states no requirement for wartime service and therefore I can only conclude that no such requirement was intended by the legislature.

Additionally, my conclusion is strengthened by comparing the language of § 12-81(20) to that of § 12-81(19), which states, in relevant part:

The following-described property shall be exempt from taxation: (19) . . . property to the amount of one thousand dollars belonging to, or held in trust for, any resident of this state who (a) is a veteran of the armed forces in service in time of war, . . . (e) any member of the armed forces who was in service in time of war and is still in the service and by reason of continuous service has not as yet received a discharge, . . . or (g) any person who is serving in the armed services in time of war; . . . . (Emphasis added).

"Where a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provision, the omission of such provision from a similar statute concerning a related subject is significant to show that a different intention existed." State v. Kevalis, 313 Conn. 590, 603 (2014). The wording of § 12-81(19) demonstrates that the legislature knows how to express its intention that wartime service is required to receive a property tax exemption. The legislature's decision not to include similar language in § 12-81(20) is a clear indication that the legislature intended no such requirement in that section. See Perry v. Perry, 312 Conn. 600 (2014) (internal citations omitted) (stating "it is a well settled principle of statutory construction that the legislature knows how to convey its intent expressly . . . or to use broader or limiting terms when it chooses to do so."). The legislature is, of course, free to include wartime service as a requirement for one tax exemption and to not include wartime service as a requirement for another tax exemption.

For all the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Connecticut General Statutes § 12-81(20) does not require an applicant to have served in time of war.

Very truly yours,

GEORGE C. JEPSEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL