TDIU = actual VA TOTAL disability rating

A previous director of the Colorado Division of Military and Veterans Affairs wrote me six years ago to state that one reason Colorado denies TDIU veterans the state partial property tax exemption is that the state law requires a VA TOTAL DISABILITY RATING, and he explained that TDIU is somehow "only" compensation at the 100% rate and not an actual disability rating. 

CDMVA hasn't made any visible effort to care for TDIU veterans the same as it cares for 100% schedular. A variety of reasons have been tossed out but as for TDIU being an actual disability,VA disagrees with CDMVA.

From Title 38, Chapter 4 (§ 4.15 Total disability ratings)

"It is the established policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled"

YouTube Video added to explain TDIU & Colorado's Disabled Vet Property Tax Exemption

Here's a PowerPoint briefing on Colorado's TDIU veterans ("total disability for individual unemployability.") Our effort is to qualify these 4800 totally disabled veterans for the same disabled veteran property tax exemption offered other Colorado veterans with a VA 100% rating.

TDIU and 100% are the only two ways VA categorizes a vet as totally and permanently disabled, but Colorado does not permit TDIU vets the small property tax exemption. 

UVC Identifies 2022 Veterans' State Legislative Objectives

At today's executive committee meeting of the United Veterans Coalition, leaders identified Gold Star Spouses' property tax exemption as our Number One state legislative objective for the 74th General Assembly of the Colorado legislature. 

Colorado's Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU) veterans' property tax exemption was selected as the coalition's Number Two goal going into the next legislative season!

Both objectives deal with Colorado's Constitution, Article X Section 3.5 and the small partial property tax exemption presently offered seniors, totally and permanently disabled veterans, and their survivors.

The Colorado Bar Association had already indicated its support for both objectives.

Co-chairs Shelly Shelly Kalkowski and Robbie Robinson presented their state legislative committee 2022 general goals and specific objectives, finalized just prior to this morning's executive committee gathering. 

Thank you, UVC!

COLORADO LEGISLATURE & GOVERNMENT: "TDIU VETS ARE ON THEIR OWN"

 Colorado voters approved Referendum E in 2006, not knowing that the legislature had already defined "qualified veteran" so as to exclude vets with the VA "total disability for individual unemployability," (TDIU.) 

Colorado's legislators and government officials chose to interpret the requirement for the "VA 100% rating" so as to exclude totally and permanently disabled veterans who are compensated at the 100% level...because they are in fact totally and permanently disabled. The only difference being, 

TDIU veterans have a totally disabling injury, worse than standard VA tables are meant to recognize, that is in fact totally and permanently disabling. These are the same totally and permanently disabled veterans – one honored by Colorado with a small property tax exemption and the other totally ignored. Are they less somehow than worthy in the eyes of our mostly non-veteran legislators?

Actually, to be completely correct, TDIU vets haven't been truly ignored. That's because the only attention given TDIU veterans by
Colorado's legislature and government has been opposition to extending to these vets, totally and permanently disabled in the line of duty, the small property tax exemption.

That's the extent of their efforts. Less than zero, because it was years of "absolutely not" instead of "let's find a way." That has meant years of being denied the specific constitutional benefit voters were told we approved as Article X Section 3.5 for all of Colorado's veterans with honorable service who became permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty. 

Have we abandoned thousands of Colorado's TDIU veterans?

How Colorado (mis)treats thousands of our totally and permanently disabled veterans - refuses TDIU vets Colorado's disabled veteran property tax exemption

 Colorado extends its small, partial property tax exemption only to veterans with the VA 100% disability rating, but REFUSES the exemption to every totally and permanently disabled veterans with the VA "total disability for permanent unemployability" (TDIU) rating. Same total disability in the line of duty, but TDIU vets have injuries that are WORSE than standard tables.

TDIU vs 100% Disabled Veterans & CO Property Tax Exemption. Perhaps we ALREADY approved TDIU?

A justification for inclusion of TDIU veterans can be based on what the legislature passed in 2006 with SCR06-001 to present to the voters for approval as Referendum E. That asked whether disabled veterans should be added to the original senior exemption. 

I believe voters approved Article X Section 3.5 with the plain meaning of the text's words to include TDRU. Here is the actual text of the amendment from the Blue Book:

"​AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.5 OF ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFYING SENIORS TO ANY UNITED STATES MILITARY VETERAN WHO IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENTLY DISABLED DUE TO A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY.​"​

According to DOLA, when the enabling legislation was crafted (HB07-1251, Section 39-3-203[1.5], C.R.S) "some legislators" then set up their definitions to fine-tune what voters thought we wanted.

Here's the legislators' "modification" of what the people voted for:

 "...A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY THAT HAS BEEN RATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY PURSUANT TO A LAW OR REGULATION ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT."

Background: It might help that we have HB16-1125 to​ align Colorado veteran-related terminology with the VA's. In 1925, the​ VA​ Schedule for Rating Disabilities provided the first definition of total disability. Total disability was defined as "an impairment of mind or body that is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation". 

That's what we have today, only VA has evolved two systems of rating tables for various injuries, percentages of which reflect an impairment in the ability to work. A certain injury, or group of injuries, reflects a work impairment in percentages up to 100%, or what is typically a total inability to work. A 100% disabled vet might possibly still work and is encouraged to do so for financial and mental health.

TDIU is absolutely no different in concept – it is also a percentage based on tables for average injuries and how they cost the vet ability to work. However, TDIU is "rounded-up" to the 100% compensation step to addresses situations where an injury or group of injuries is uniquely worse than typical​, ​constituting the ​actual​ total inability to work. 

A TDIU vet who is someday able to return to work forfeits VA compensation, but the 100% vet is encouraged to work if possible and keeps the compensation. TDIU qualification is with full mental or physical disability, just as with Social Security Disability. Often the TDIU is evaluated first by state rehab agencies or a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor in addition to VA exams. 

VA's Inspector General describes TDIU as VA's solution for VA own "inadequate rating tables." Denying a totally and permanently disabled who VA determines has injuries worse than VA's "inadequate" rating is certainly not something ​voters expected to do in approving Referendum E. However, for some illogical reason, Colorado has ended up with that interpretation penalize our TDIU​ vets.

One would have to read the text and make an effort to exclude TDIU​ – and we've done that in our state.

Certainly, if an interpretation is to be made reading the referendum and its explanation, the general sense of inclusion for TDIU is far stronger than its exclusion. Because there was no further qualification or explanation​ in the amendment's text or explanation, no fine-tuning​ as to military veteran​s​totally and permanently disabled due to a service-connected disability – it includes both categories. 

​So, are we left wondering only about the difference between ​“100%” ​and​ “Total?” Did the electorate read the text to include or to exclude either, especially after reading the Blue Book analysis?​ ​Ask a lawyer​ or an English teacher (in one of my former lives, I was an English teacher with a California Community Colleges Lifetime Credential.)​ 

Colorado ​has​ put​ much​ too-fine and illogical a distinction between "100%​"​ and ​"​total" TDIU veterans with permanent awards. Colorado even has our statute, section 2-4-101, C.R.S., that supports the Plain Meaning Rule: "Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage." I imagine that is especially so with foundational documents such as the constitution.

A. The plain meaning of total includes 100%, complete, containing the whole, an entirety, absolute, perfect, unconditional, and pure. 

B. The plain meaning of one-hundred-percent includes total, complete, full, all, perfect, whole, all inclusive, absolute, an entirety.

Either way, Colorado has one of our citizens to care for, an honorable veteran who volunteered for service and came home totally and permanently disabled ​as well as actually unable to ever work ​due to terrible line of duty injuries, classified by VA as TDIU.

But Colorado refuses even this small tax benefit. Our legislature said our totally and permanently disabled TDIU vet isn't totally and permanently disabled enough, per its preference for one VA total disability category over another, even when VA means them to be the same in protection of the same totally and permanently veterans? Even though Colorado overwhelmingly approved the benefit when we voted for "ANY UNITED STATES MILITARY VETERAN WHO IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENTLY DISABLED DUE TO A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY.​"​

Here's another thought. There should be no need for a constitutional amendment to address TDIU. Two arguments for that are:

A. We already approved all totally disabled veterans in Referendum E, or

B. Because the legislature defined "qualifying disabled veteran" it can easily do so again to clarify inclusion of TDIU rather than exclusion

Here is how one law firm explains the issue: 

What are the differences between 100% and permanent total disability ratings?

The main difference is why you obtain the rating. If you receive a 100% rating, it is because your disabilities totaled this amount on the Combined Ratings table. If you receive a permanent total disability rating, it is because you received a 100% rating and your conditions are not expected to improve. Veterans can receive a 100% rating or TDIU without the permanent and total disability VA benefits rating attached to it.

“Total” means that all your disabilities equal a 100 percent veterans benefits rating. “Permanent” means the VA expects the veteran’s disability to continue throughout their life without significant improvement. 

 Are Individual Unemployability benefits considered permanent total disability ratings?

First, you should understand that Individual Unemployability benefits, 100% ratings, and permanent total disability ratings are different things. First, Individual Unemployability does not require you to obtain a 100% rating, but they pay the same. Like a 100% disability rating, Individual Unemployability is not necessarily permanent. If you return to work you lose your TDIU. However, veterans can receive a 100 percent rating while working full-time. TDIU is restrictive and an actual determination of the inability to work.

Veterans can receive permanent TDIU ratings while they receive Individual Unemployability benefits if VA determines the line-of-duty conditions preventing you from working are not expected to improve."

​Note: Both groups can ha​​ve temporary categories, but we're only concerned about ​​VA permanent ratings.
​

For reference, here's Referendum E's text from the 2006 B​lue Book:

"​AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.5 OF ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFYING SENIORS TO ANY UNITED STATES MILITARY VETERAN WHO IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENTLY DISABLED DUE TO A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY.​"​

The Colorado Property Tax Reduction for Disabled Veterans Referendum, also known as Referendum E, was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in Colorado as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure extended a property tax exemption for qualified senior citizens to all U.S. military veterans living in Colorado who are 100% disabled due to a service-related disability​.​

Who qualifies for the tax deduction? Homeowners who have served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and are rated 100-percent permanently disabled by the federal government due to a service-connected disability qualify for the tax reduction in Referendum E. Colorado National Guard members injured while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces also qualify. Veterans are rated 100-percent permanently disabled when a mental or physical injury makes it impossible for the average person to hold a job and the disability is lifelong. Nationally, less than one percent of veterans have a 100-percent permanent disability rating. About 2,200 veterans are expected to qualify for the property tax reduction in Colorado.

Colorado Bar Association: Statement of Support for Disabled Veterans and Gold Star Wives re: Property Tax Exemption

 Colorado Bar Statement:

"The Military and Veterans Affairs Committee (MVA) of the Colorado Bar Association has affirmed its support for two state legislative objectives for 2022. Both involve the state's partial Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption, a constitutional benefit since 2007.

Gold Star Wives, survivors of active-duty servicemembers, are denied the exemption because the legislation (HB-14-1373) and enabling statute provides the exemption for survivors of veterans who had the benefit at the time of death. Using the text, "the surviving spouse of a qualified disabled veteran who previously received an exemption," 

Colorado legislators apparently did not consider the issue of active-duty deaths. Loss of the servicemember on active duty precludes the 'previously received an exemption' requirement. Proposed is a redefinition of a qualified recipient to include survivors of active duty servicemembers who die in the line of duty.

The second proposed legislative issue is veterans with VA Total Disability for Individual Unemployability, or 'TDIU.' Just like VA's other 100% disability veterans whose wounds or illnesses are rated totally disabling, these vets are 100% permanently and totally disabled, but currently are excluded from the exemption. 

Their disability is total, not per the VA rating schedule for the particular disability, but because their service-connected disability makes them unable to maintain employment. A TDIU veteran has been found by the VA to be physically or mentally unable to ever work again due to their service-connected disabilities. MVA will propose redefining 'disabled veteran to include TDIU veterans."

We ALL must start reading the Colorado state constitution

Otherwise, we won't know what they're doing to us, or how.

Article X Section 3.5:

"1.5) For purposes of this section, "disabled veteran" means an individual who has served on active duty in the United States armed forces, including a member of the Colorado national guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, has been separated therefrom under honorable conditions, and has established a service-connected disability that has been rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits or a pension pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department, the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force"

 I admit to a period of unAmerican cowardice. I failed to to stand up for myself, and in that failure also failed other Colorado veterans who were in the same situation. We were about 450 totally disabled military retirees, and as you can read in the clip from the Colorado constitution above, we have a property tax exemption. My failure was when DOLA and CDMVA denied me the exemption and disregarded the state constitution. In effect, these agencies and the legislature nullified parts of Article X Section 3.5.

I pointed out the constitution but was rebuffed – "No, we follow the law," insisted DOLA. There was no argument about the law being flawed, having left out those last fifteen words that clearly included us, clearly providing us a constitutional protection and benefit. Too bad, was the state's attitude. Go talk to your legislator. They failed to uphold the constitution or do anything about it. In fact, they NEVER did anything about this obvious conflict except make sure taxes were demanded and paid. Between 2007 and 2021, the estimate is that $3.825,000 was unconstitutionally taxed from these veterans.

My cowardice was in paying the tax even without the exemption. I have no excuse because I'd read both the law and the constitution's Article X Section 3.5, so I knew better. But I caved. My failing was to politely stand up for my constitutional rights,  Not as some "oath keeper" or such, but merely as a quiet American citizen.

 

My fear? Refusing to pay might cost me more somehow, in fines or something. In the extreme I might lose my house, get something on my credit report or some kind of legal trouble even while being passively resistant. "No. It's only a few hundred dollars," I reasoned.

But that was no reason. I abused the constitution itself. No excuse. I let the state, my fellow veterans and all Colorado citizens down by my inaction. Trying to fix it after I caved is no redemption. I faced some really wild and weird stuff flying in crates ranging from the T-33 and C-47 to Fat Albert (C-5,) and 26 years of military service but never caved or soiled my trousers; this time, I folded like a baby. 

I should have paid all but the exemption value, let the state seize my home for non-payment of taxes, and then tried to defend my position in court.

The first and only constitutional I was faced with (state or federal,) I backed down. I paid my property tax in full because DOLA and CMDVA said I had to, despite our state constitution. They didn't do their sworn duty, and neither did I. My shame is the greater.

Why? I must not have truly believed what I thought about the constitution. In this instance, the state constitution but the principal is the same. Jefferson would be, probably is, ashamed of me. I am.

Public Officials take an oath to support Colorado's constitution. What does that really mean?

Why? Because it guarantees my rights and freedoms, and Colorado officials take a solemn oath of office to support my rights and freedoms guaranteed by it.

 

Apology: I have to admit writing out of seven years of mounting
frustration on this state issue. You see, in my world the oath was military; “support and defend” and we were trusted to do just that, regardless of personal hazards, difficulties, obstacles, etc. We were also carefully taught for decades that support and defense of the Constitution of the United States is our highest duty.

Lesson from the 1946-1948 Nurenberg trials? Orders from a superior that conflict are illegal. If laws, orders and regulations present a conflict, I must seek assistance from colleagues, higher authorities, the Judge Advocate General, or even resign if possible. If circumstances leave my resignation impossible, I am obliged to obey the Constitution as best I can understand it. Merely hiding behind an illegal or unconstitutional order would be no defense at all.

But what about the oath to support the constitution of the state of Colorado? State officials swear to support both the US and the state constitutions?

This essay’s question arises because of an obvious conflict between our Colorado constitution’s Article X Section 3.5 and its enabling legislation, both resulting from the 2006 Referendum E.  S.C.R. 06-001 in 2007 law left out fifteen words describing totally disabled military retirees and the guaranty therein of a disabled veteran property tax exemption: 

    "the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force."

Those last fifteen words in Section 3.5 and not in S.C.R. 06-001 or § 39-3-202 C.R.S. (until 2016) denied the property tax exemption to approximately 450 totally disabled military retirees, about ten percent of our entire eligible vets. Still abandoned as of June 2021 are 450 with an Army, Navy or Air Force medical retirement as totally disabled. They’re constitutionally qualified for but statutorily disqualified for the exemption. 

That is, veterans who are qualified and entitled by the constitution but denied by the law or regulations or actions of the government.

In this instance, state agencies and state officials have elected since 2007 to adhere to the law and not the constitution. Year after year, they refused the constitutional protection of Article X Section 3.5 guaranteed these 450 Colorado disabled veterans.
 

The purpose of Colorado’s oath of office, itself part of our constitution, is to remind state workers and officials is that they do not swear allegiance to a supervisor, agency, political appointee, law or regulation, or even to the governor or president. Their paramount oath is to support the Colorado and United States constitutions and faithfully execute one’s duties.  

Private citizens are not party to this reminder and have no duties under it directly. Public employees and officials most definitely do have duties they’ve sworn to fulfill. We should be able to rely on them faithfully doing so. The people of Colorado are sovereign over the courts, the executive and the legislature with all its laws. The constitution represents the will of the people – yet the people’s will has been ignored as regards the disabled veteran property tax exemption owed our 100% disabled medically retired servicemembers.

If Colorado courts wait to address the problem until it arises as a case or controversy about taxation, public trust in the fairness and legality of imposed every citizen's tax burden could be shaken.

§ 39-3-202 C.R.S is just a statute; it cannot override the Colorado Constitution. In Colorado, the only way to remove the right of disabled military retirees to the property tax exemption would be by amending the state Constitution. Unless and until there is an amendment, no statute can deprive Coloradans of their constitutional rights. DOLA, the Treasurer, and CDMVA simply skipped that process and ignored the constitution.

Fortunately, the Colorado Constitution gives the Colorado Supreme Court the authority to “give its opinion upon important questions upon solemn occasions when required by the governor, the senate, or the house of representatives. . .” In other words, the governor, the state house, or the state senate can send an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court, even if no case has arisen in which a taxpayer plaintiff has standing. 

For ten years, DOLA and CDMVA opted to tax 450 disabled veterans despite the constitutional protection due the vets. An estimated $3.825M has been lawfully but unconstitutionally raised in these excess taxes. DOLA writes they must assume the laws to be constitutionally correct; they have blinders on even when the laws clearly are unconstitutional.

One can assume that our fifteen missing constitutional words have long been noted for their absence. Noted, but never corrected, not by DOLA, CDMVA, LSC, the secretary of state, or the attorney general. Sworn officials dismissed this issue, telling veterans “go talk to your legislator or the supreme court. Get your constitutional rights only if you are able to and can afford to go to the supreme court.” In effect, “it is not our job to support the constitution for its benefits guaranteed you disabled veterans.”

After similar responses from DOLA, a 100% disabled military retiree sought correction of the issue in 2014; HB16-1444, a new law effect by 2017, brought the statute into agreement with the constitution. The important point: officials took the oath and should be expected to (but did not) uphold Article X Section 3.5 of Colorado above any conflicting law or regulation. 

They did nothing to support the constitution, choosing instead enforcement of the flawed, incomplete law. Sworn officials did not go to the legislature for a correction, did not go to the supreme court, did not refuse to enforce a clearly unconstitutional tax statute – they opted not to uphold their solemn oath.

Where does this bring us today? Problem solved? Nope. Not hardly!

Despite HB16-1444, special legislation back in 2016 to bring the tax statutes into compliance with the constitution, the state continues to block veterans guaranteed protection from those fifteen last words in Article X Section 3.5 –"the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force."

How? By still requiring these 450 vets to submit documentation from the VA. Even the forms updated since 2016 continue to inform veterans they are qualified only if they are 100% VA vets with VA documentation.

Web site after county web site, state web site after state web site, virtually every place one finds information about the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption DOLA and CDMVA continue to ignore the constitution. DOLA has tried at least twice in the last five years to have counties update details about the exemption, but even the DOLA web site application and instruction forms continue to misinform veterans that a document showing VA 100% disability must be submitted. A disabled military retiree reading that simply doesn't bother going any further.

DOLA has tried, and perhaps CDMVA even more than I know, but Colorado continues to insist on unconstitutional taxes taken from disabled veteran homeowners.

   

Did Colorado OVERTAX 100% Disabled Veterans an EXTRA $3.6M in Property Taxes?

Yes. It appears that for nearly fifteen years Colorado has accidentally but unconstitutionally overcharged hundreds of our 100% disabled military veterans by $4,050,000! Nearly seven percent of the totally disabled military veterans in Colorado are involved.This is a complicated constitutional argument to follow, so have fun! (The final paragraph provides the reasoning behind the $4.1M unfairly taxed from vets.)

In 2007 voters approved Referendum E to create Article X Section 3.5, qualifying 100% disabled military veterans a partial property tax exemption similar to the senior exemption. This had been referred to the voters by the legislature for constitutional amendment as S.C.R. 06-001:

"Property tax exemption for disabled veterans. For property tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2007, extends the existing property tax exemption for qualifying seniors to any United States military veteran, including any member of the Colorado national guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, who has been separated from service under honorable conditions and who is 100% permanently disabled due to a service-connected disability. Requires the state to compensate local governments for property tax revenues lost as a result of the extension of the exemption."

For following this issue today, the relevant part of Article X Section 3.5, the amendment created by Referendum E is:

"(1.5) For purposes of this section, 'disabled veteran' means an individual who has served on active duty in the United States armed forces, including a member of the Colorado national guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, has been separated therefrom under honorable conditions, and has established a service-connected disability that has been rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits or a pension pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department, the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force"

The legislature then turned to provide an enabling statute to implement the new amendment, passing HB07-1251:

"(3.5) 'QUALIFYING DISABLED VETERAN' MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, INCLUDING A MEMBER OF THE COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD WHO HAS BEEN ORDERED INTO THE ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS BEEN SEPARATED THEREFROM UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS, AND HAS ESTABLISHED A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY THAT HAS BEEN RATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY PURSUANT TO A LAW OR REGULATION ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT."

HB07-1251 begat the tax details in C.R.S. Section 39-3-202 which read (until 2016 with HB16-1444):

(3.5) "Qualifying disabled veteran" means an individual who has served on active duty in the United States armed forces, including a member of the Colorado National Guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, has been separated therefrom under honorable conditions, and has established a service-connected disability that has been rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as a one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department.

By the plain reading of the new constitutional amendment, all a qualified vet would have to do is present a copy of their VA certification or proof of medical retirement from the armed forces as totally disabled in the line of duty. Both were specified in  Article X Section 3.5 because some military retirees never seek a VA disability – a number estimated by the state at about 450.

The problem causing vets being forced to pay extra property taxes by being denied the exemption arose when the constitutional amendment in Referendum E was implemented in tax statutes. The Legislature passed HB07-1251 and in doing so, forgot (neglected, opted against) to include the last fifteen words of Article X Section 3.5 – "the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force"

Do you see it? Compare the last fifteen words in Article X Section 3.5 against subsequent legislation. The lawmakers clearly did not include the referendum's provision for 100% disabled military retirees. Fifteen words left out denied the exemption to about 450 veterans.

By the plain reading of the new constitutional amendment, all a qualified vet would have to do is present a copy of their VA certification or proof of medical retirement from the armed forces as totally disabled in the line of duty. Both were specified in  Article X Section 3.5 because some military retirees never seek a VA disability – a number estimated by the state at about 450. 

Here's our problem: Colorado’s constitution is supreme, trumping statutory law in areas of conflict. Article X Section 3.5 therefore outguns HB07-1251, at least in the part where disabled military retirees are left out of the legislation.

So HB07-1251 seems unconstitutional. Only the Supreme Court can declare it so, but the plain meaning of the words (and of the words not included in the statute) is very clear. 100% disabled military retirees separated by their services should have been receiving our Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption since 2007.

In 2014 along came a 100% disabled military retiree who's application for the exemption was denied by CDMVA. The vet was initially rebuffed, referred back to the statute and various forms. But then he tracked the statutes back to the constitution and Article X Section 3.5. Even reading it a few times wasn't illuminating, at least not until he read it a bit more slowly and noted those missing fifteen words! Eureka!

This could have been resolved by working the issue up to the Supreme Court, but sympathetic advice from DOLA experts proved much more effective – "go to your legislators."

A couple phone calls, a few town hall meetings and many letters and emails later, Senator John Kefalas and other legislators took the bit in their teeth and got HB16-1444 enacted. That happened because the United Veterans Coalition backed the issue by making it a 2006 legislative objective. 

So, this little problem solved, thought the vet. HB16-1444 took effect in 2017 and he got his exemption, although he'd also received a VA 100% rating to replace his initial VA 100% disability rating for TDIU. Then in 2018 he noticed few of the counties updated forms or instructions to include those fifteen last words left out that got the correction.

Off went a missive to DOLA, asking them to urge counties and other state agencies to more closely adhere to the law. DOLA responded quickly, posting another reminder that circulated throughout the state. DOLA also said they'd update their own form and web site information.

Problem solved? No. Checking this month of June 2021, four years after HB16-1444 went into effect, fourteen years after the constitutional mistake was made, DOLA, Treasury, CMDVA and other agencies and most counties still fail to include 100% military disabled retirees.

How did the figure $4,050,000 get calculated?  The number of 450 affected disabled military retirees from state agency reports was multiplied by $600 for the average value of the property tax exemption denied them, then multiplied by fifteen years. Total: $4.1M.  Unconstitutional?

Here is the background paper trail on this issue.

===============================

Here are examples of state or county agencies failing to properly describe qualified veterans:

A. DOLA, CMDVA, Boulder, Douglas, Pacific, Weld, most counties's application

=========================================================

B. Douglas, most other counties' application instruction
===================================================

Property Tax

Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

This program is for Disabled Veterans who:

• Are RATED by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs at 100%, Permanently and Totally Disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Individual Unemployability does not qualify) AND

C. Even DOLA and the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs doesn't correct inaccurate information.
====================================================

D.  Treasurer of the state - him, too! Fear of having to give unconstitutionally demanded property taxes back to the
disabled military retireesQ

REPRINT: Back in 2017 I complained that the state ignored HB16-1444 – Still little compliance with constitution!

by Wes Carter, National Chairperson, The C-123 Veterans Association

It’s damn hard to believe. Over this last decade state officials simply ignored property tax provisions spelled out in Colorado’s constitution to provide a small exemption to totally disabled troops retired by the military for line-of-duty injuries. It’s like the law simply went missing in action.

Back in 2006 voters amended our constitution, approving by a four-to-one margin to provide a small, partial property tax exemption. Only about $6000 value on average, the exemption is for two categories of injured servicemembers: Troops retired by the military as totally and permanently, and second, veterans rated 100% totally and permanently disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs – "TDIU."

Referendum E carefully addressed both of the above categories because there are three differences between them:

1. Not all disabled military retirees also seek a VA disability rating – ratings must be applied for and, unlike military disability retirements, can take months or years to establish

2. Although based on similar laws, often military retirees face years of delays with claims and appeals to receive VA ratings, but military disability retirements are effective immediately upon leaving active duty

3. The military views a disability as medically unable, through line-of-duty illness or injury, to perform one's military specialty or be retrained in another; VA views disability as the percentage of loss of capacity to work in meaningful employment, somewhat similar to Social Security disability rules

(real example: Northern Colorado resident Vietnam-era veteran medically retired as 100% by the military in 1991 because of Gulf War injuries. Filed VA claims for numerous 100% disabling injuries and Agent Orange illnesses in 1992-1994 but not finally approved for 100% VA disability rating until 2015. Per our constitution's Article X Section 3.5, this veteran was eligible for Colorado's disabled veteran tax exemption in 2007. As of December 2017, still no state web site instructions or forms permit his application because only federal VA 100% disability ratings are mentioned, not his 100% military medical retirement.)

Problem: Through an oversight when the 2007 statute was drafted, the category of totally disabled military retirees was simply not mentioned…language about them is in the constitution, but was absent from the text of the law.

In 2015 concerned citizens discovered this missing language issue and asked the legislature to align the constitution with the statute. Both houses approved HB-1444 unanimously and it was signed into law in May 2016.

And then, generally ignored by state and local officials.

Colorado's abandoned 100% disabled veterans – those rated "Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU)"

Voters approved Referendum E in 2006. We were asked whether a partial property tax exemption should be offered totally and permanently disabled veterans. We approved. But we didn't get what we voted for, not by half.

VA has two kinds of total disability awards – "TDIU" for total disability for individual unemployability, and 100% service connected permanent and total.

VA may increase certain veterans' disability compensation to the 100 percent level, even though VA has not rated their service-connected disabilities at that level. To receive the supplement, termed an Individual Unemployability (IU) payment, disabled veterans must apply for the benefit and meet two criteria. First, veterans generally must be rated between 60 percent and 90 percent disabled. Second, VA must determine that veterans' disabilities prevent them from maintaining substantially gainful employment—for instance, if their employment earnings would keep them below the poverty threshold for one person. 

Unhappily, our legislators really tightened up qualifications and locked out every single TDIU veteran. TDIU vets are carefully evaluated by VA, have at least one 60% permanent disability and a combination of factors making it physically impossible for them to work. Ever. Both vets are referred to as 100% VA disabled, but TDIU veterans have been refused the Colorado disabled veteran property tax exemption.

Consider the leeway given the legislature in the tax code. Clearly, the legislators had/have the power to follow Referendum E "in a manner that gives its words their natural and obvious significance." Must we suppose that totally and permanently disabled aren't "natural and obvious" enough words for TDIU?

Colorado Revised Statutes 2016, Title 39-3-202

TITLE 39(c) In enacting legislation to implement section 3.5 of article X of the state constitution the general assembly has attempted to interpret the provisions of section 3.5 of article X of the state constitution in a manner that gives its words their natural and obvious significance;

VA OIG 19-00227-226, Page ii, September 10, 2020

"Veterans are considered to have total disability when they have a 100 percent disability rating due to service-connected disabilities or if their service-connected disabilities make them unemployable. For the total disability to be permanent, the law requires the disability to be “based upon an impairment reasonably certain to continue throughout life."

"The Veterans Benefits Administration Inadequately Supported Permanent and Total Disability Decisions",

   

LEGISLATIVE ACTION: Two possible changes to Article X Section 3.5 to add Gold Star Wives' property tax exemption

Perhaps adding Gold Star Wives to the Disabled Veteran's Survivor Property Tax Exemption can be done in a couple different ways. A constitutional amendment is much harder than in earlier years, but legislation or regulatory action might be easier. It bears looking into!

Here are two possible legislative actions, easy-to-use keys we might use by hacking the definition of "disabled veteran" to encompass an active duty death of a soldier, sailor airman or Marine, or a Colorado National Guard member ordered to active state duty:

SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 39-3-202, amend 3 (3.5) as follows: 4 39-3-202. Definitions. As used in this part 2, unless the context 5 otherwise requires:

(FIRST possible revision)

(b)  The owner-occupier is the spouse or surviving spouse of an owner-occupier who previously qualified for a property tax exemption for the same residential real property under paragraph (a) of this subsection OR THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES OR IN THE COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD WHILE ACTIVATED FOR STATE CONTINGENCIES

SECOND possible revision)

(1.5) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "DISABLED VETERAN" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, INCLUDING A MEMBER OF THE COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD WHO HAS BEEN ORDERED INTO THE ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS BEEN SEPARATED THEREFROM UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS, AND HAS ESTABLISHED A SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY THAT HAS BEEN RATED BY THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENT DISABILITY THROUGH DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS OR A PENSION PURSUANT TO A LAW OR REGULATION ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, NAVY, OR AIR FORCE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DIES IN THE LINE OF DUTY WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES OR THE COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD WHEN ACTIVATED FOR STATE CONTINGENCIES IS DEEMED A DISABLED VETERAN PREVIOUSLY QUALIFIED FOR A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION

 

"...in keeping with our legislative agenda" - United Veterans Coalition Champions Veterans' Issues for Colorado. When the time is right, Gold Star Wives' concerns WILL be heard!

Four hundred and sixty thousand loud, strong voices.  

At the right time,, I'm hopeful these thousands of veterans will be convincing our General Assembly that Gold Star Wives should be eligible for the Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption.

But this just isn't the right moment for GSW property tax issues. The benefit will be sought in the near future, just not right now. And it wasn't right back in 2016 when our state legislative agenda included Gold Star survivors but no traction was found, not even a draft bill.

UVC is "the tip of the spear" for our state's veterans. Speaking as one voice, coordinating dozens of organizations state-wide. VFW, DAV, American Legion, PVA, MOAA, NCOA, ROA, AFSA, VVA, and so many others of which I'm not a member – Submarine Veterans, Gold Star Wives - if an association serves vets and their families, if an organization promotes the national defense, they're a welcome part part of UVC and their concerns are heard. The various needs and propositions are discussed by the membership, and those agreed by UVC are delivered to the decision makers, both state and federal, in the form of the annual focused UVC legislative objectives.  

Legislators in Denver and Washington listen carefully, hearing those thousands of UVC voices when the United Veterans Coalition speaks. Whether addressing an individual legislator, senate or house committee, or public forum like a town hall meeting or city council, the United Veterans Coalition commands attention, and rightfully so.

I know this. On a few occasions, I was a witness before the National Academies of Science or one of the house or senate committees, and authorized to speak on behalf of the UVC. UVC was firmly behind me as I sought Agent Orange benefits for C-123 veterans. We got all of Colorado's senators and congressional representatives together to pressure the VA, even to block presidential nominations from consideration until VA acted. Finally, we won on the merit of the issue and UVC strength. 

We won the four year battle and gained VA Agent Orange benefits for 2500 Air Force C-123 aircrew, maintainers and survivors. Until Congress acted on the Blue Water Navy group, this was the only time VA added a new Agent Orange exposure group, and the only expansion of Agent Orange benefits since 1991. With HB16-1444 we won property tax exemptions for Colorado 450 military retirees and their survivors who'd been medically separated from their service as 100% disabled, and in doing so we brought the legislation into agreement with our state constitution's Article X Section 3.5. 

Not only does the UVC present veterans' concerns to our legislator, UVC also prioritizes the multitude of issues and forms an annual legislative agenda for both state and federal issues.

The UVC legislative agenda is already firmly set for 2021, but has yet to be finalized for 2022. Whether or not Gold Star Wives' property tax exemption is identified as an objective is up to the primary members and lobbyists of UVC. The coalition sorts out our needs, identifies the possible, and prioritizes them. Presto, the annual legislative agenda.

At the right time, Gold Star Wives' property tax issue is likely to be addressed by the coalition. Admirably, the GSW members are patient and understanding, with full confidence in the coalition.

The timing for GSW isn't right for 2021. Complexities of state budget, coalition priorities. Strategy and resources – all must align, and then UVC will deliver for the members of Colorado's Gold Star Wives. Let's get together for Gold Star Wives' proper place on the UVC 2022 legislative agenda!

"New" 2019 Data on Gold Star Wives: from Colorado's Legislative Council Staff

 Just uncovered in our effort to protect survivors of active-duty line-of-duty deaths: Acting on the request from a Colorado state representative, the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) researched the addition of Gold Star Wives to our Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption and it is nowhere near the big numbers first anticipated.

LCS calculated around 150 potential widows/widowers might be made eligible, for a cost to the state budget of just $95,000. This is much more doable than the earlier estimate of nearly 1000 exemptions with the cost of just under $1 million. I think the number is higher, perhaps a couple hundred.

This is much more doable than the earlier estimate of nearly a thousand exemptions with the cost of just under $1 million. Still, it is a cost that must be matched by a reduction somewhere.

Other stats from the Colorado Fiscal Institute and other sources have been identified that help clarify things:

-addition of Gold Star Wives is just a 0.0006 fraction of the overall homestead exemption, or 150 compared to 450,000, and a similarly small portion of the vets/survivors' population of 5500 souls.

-veterans and survivors exemptions are only 2% of the overall homestead exemption
-disabled veterans; survivors include the only under 65 years of age population eligible for exemption

-52% of active duty troops are married and thus, potentially 52% of active duty deaths leave Gold Star Spouses. Overwhelmingly, and sadly, deaths are heaviest among younger troops, averaging age 30. This is always the case in war

-Nationally, around 27% of homeowners are age 35 or younger with an even lower percentage for active-duty military.

These numbers should help calm the "sticker shock" otherwise expected from legislators and state budget officials, and they also help move this project along as we firm up specifics. Thank you, LCS and the state representative who raised the issue with them in 2019. This really helps!

Some more statistics:

-Active-duty servicemembers have lower homeownership rates (mean 43%) at younger ages than veterans (78%) and the population as a whole (68%,) but they have the highest homeownership rates (71%) in the 55-up age group

-Home ownership by veterans is greatly benefited by VA loans, and by the steady disability or retirement income many have.

-Home ownership by active duty servicemembers is also benefited by VA loans, and steady, easily verified income. Ownership is made much more difficult due to frequent transfers, and there is a significant initial home ownership surge at retirement age

-As homeownership is an important wealth-building tool (Goodman and Mayer 2018), smaller
homeownership gaps by race or ethnicity also means smaller wealth gaps. According to the Panel Study
of Income Dynamics, the black-white housing wealth gap in 2017 was $48,500 for households with veterans and active-duty servicemembers ages 35 and 54, but the gap was $71,500 for nonmilitary households. Too many younger totally disabled veterans never have the opportunity to acquire wealth or home ownership due to income limitations, even with the VA loans.

-Veteran households (non-disabled) and active-duty military households have higher median household incomes than nonmilitary households, $70,000/yr vs. $60,000, with communities of color having lower race disparities than the general population.Household income also varies by military status, age and length of service. 

-The average income is $90,800 (with benefits' value included) for active-duty military households, $87,600 fo non-disabled veteran households, and $85,000 for nonmilitary households. Spousal income is lower for active-duty military than for veterans and the general population.

-