Recognition for Colorado Legislators Who Sponsored Gold Star Spouses Amendment

 On Wednesday the United Veterans of Colorado met with legislators who sponsored last years' constitutional amendment adding Gold Star Spouses to the property tax exemption. We're grateful for their outstanding leadership, especially from Representative Cathy Kipp!

A DISABLED VETERAN AND MILITARY RETIREE LOOKS AT HB23-1084 -Continuation of Military Retirement Benefit Deduction in Colorado

This measure deserves the full support of the Colorado legislature and the voters. It certainly has mine!

HB23-1084 is important. It carries a small and reasonable cost that brings advantages to the state well beyond the investment. It should be approved this session.

DECLARATION: Neither this bill nor HB23-1002 will affect me as my retirements are already exempt from Colorado’s income tax. I am a VA-rated 100% disabled veteran and also a 26-year military retiree separated from the Air Force at a 100% medical disability, thus my state income tax is already exempt for other provisions of the law.

At first glance, I believed HB23-1002 for disabled veterans should be a priority over HB23-1084. Instead, I now urge approval of both measures because they are good for veterans and great for Colorado. This year both bills are firmly supported by the United Veterans of Colorado.

Since 2011 I’ve urged legislative action to help other totally disabled veterans and thus have long supported measures such as HB23-1002. Colorado’s constitution currently provides a partial property tax exemption to VA-rated 100% disabled vets but fails to address VA’s second category of disabled veterans who are totally disabled, those the VA rates as “totally disabled for individual unemployability (TDIU.)

HB23-1052 addresses that oversight and supports nearly 3,000 of Colorado’s most seriously and totally disabled veterans whose injuries or illnesses prevent any employment. I expected to strongly favor only this initiative because of the moral imperative of meeting the needs of these vets. 

I’ve changed my view. I see both measures as vital legislation for Colorado in 2023, particularly because HB23-1084 is an economic “no-brainer,” bringing much more to Colorado than it costs

Retired military who chose Colorado as their home following active duty do so for many reasons. Clearly, important among them is a favorable treatment of their military retirement income. Colorado currently exempts a modest portion of a military pension; HB23-1084 merely extends it to 2034. This measure pays for itself far beyond its modest cost,

In 2021 28 states exempted all of a military retirement from state income taxes, and that number rose to 32 in 2022. Eleven states, including Colorado, currently offer an exemption for at least some portion of a military retirement. Seven states and the District of Columbia have no military pension exemption. To our disadvantage, Colorado will join that short list in 2024 unless HB23-1084 is approved to continue our partial exemption.

Governments and legislators see the importance of being “veteran-friendly” but unfortunately Colorado only ranks a modest 27th among the states.

Being “military-friendly” recognizes a retiree’s long service to the state and nation and it makes great economic sense. Thanks in part to the current partial exemption provided military pensions in Colorado, our 50,000 retired military have brought their steady retirement income. Most brought their military experience, skills and knowledge to join our workforce or start their own businesses as second careers. Servicemembers already here have been encouraged to stay after leaving active service, and others selected our state as their new home, in part because of the current partial exemption for military pensions.

States value retired military members because they bolster the state economy by bringing retirement income and non-taxed VA benefits, like the GI Bill. Typically, their federal benefits leave them independent of state support services. According to a California study considering state taxation of military pensions, researchers determined there would be significantly more jobs, millions added to total personal income, billions added to gross state product and to business sales if military pensions were exempted.

Another recent study by the Towson University Regional Economic Studies Institute (RESI), found that “If (the state) does not exempt military retired pay from state income taxes … countless other service members and their families will opt to retire to military retiree-friendly states.”

The Towson study also stated that when military retirees reenter the workforce, their taxable income generates an economic impact in addition to that of their military pensions. Their second careers can last from 15 to 20 years. Military retiree household spending — groceries, rent, mortgage payments, automobile purchases and recreation spending, to name a few items — also benefits the economy. As average to above-average wage earners, these are the folks Colorado wants to attract and keep.

HB23-1084 is a golden opportunity to increase state revenues by passing legislation that would continue to partially exempt military retired pay from state income tax. This legislation would help stem a migration of skilled and experienced personnel who retire from the military and leave Colorado because of state income tax higher than other states.

Military vets are good neighbors who pay their bills, volunteer in the community and have an appreciable level of discretionary income. Most other states have learned this and realize that exempting military pensions from state income taxes means losing a little in revenue but building a stronger fiscal base by increasing the total number of state taxpayers. States that understand the economics of exempting military retired pay reap the benefits that come with creating an attractive fiscal landscape. 

We need to keep our “landscape” military-friendly with HB23-1084.

VICTORY FOR GOLD STAR SPOUSES!

AMENDMENT E APPROVED BY 88% OF COLORADO VOTERS!

In a sweeping victory for the United Veterans of Colorado and Gold Star Spouses, voters approved amending the Colorado Constitution Article X Section 3.5 to extend the partial property tax exemption to Gold Star Spouses.

 Several years of efforts, of resolutions passed by the American Legion, leadership of the UVC and patience of the Gold Star spouses themselves, all finally came to the best possible resolution – not only passed as required with 55% of the voters approving, but by an overwhelming 88%.

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.

Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU) Property Tax Exemption Briefer and TDIU slide show (QR Codes)

1. SCAN or CLICK to download TDIU Briefing File

2. SCAN or CLICK for TDIU Briefing Slides

 

What is VA "TDIU" and how does VA use that rating?

I've needed to go into an explanation what VA TDIU is (CLICK HERE for VA's factsheet) but I overlooked doing it until questions arose at Sunday night's United Veterans Coalition banquet in Denver. A gentleman at our table was from Arapaho County and asked me about helping his Army veteran son.

A skillful veteran’s service officer (VFW, DAV, state or county) can advise about eligibility for Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU, and sometimes just IU) and help one obtain this valuable benefit if qualified. These pros know the mysterious VA bureaucracy and the evidence required to obtain favorable benefit claim decisions for disabled veterans. Their objective for every disabled vet they assist is to get the maximum entitled benefit. And actually, that's VA's goal as well.

The VA requires veterans to prove their qualifications for disability benefits but even then, VA routinely denies legitimate TDIU claims. 

Qualifying for TDIU:

The VA’s Individual Unemployability (TDIU) benefit represents somewhat of a loophole for disabled veterans in the VA system. It allows assigning a total disability rating for compensation (100%) to to a vet when the vet’s actual disability exceeds the VA's rating chart. TDIU was established decades ago when VA appreciated that there were situations where the regular percentage allowed for a disability is inadequate and where the vet's particular disability (regardless of any rating chart) is in fact total. TDIU ratings account for situations where the line-of-duty disability has made employment impossible, making employment impractical. 

Total Disability for Individual Unemployability is based on the vet’s proven inability to maintain “substantially gainful employment” due to a service-connected illness or injury.

VA regulations usually require the vet to have at least one service-connected disability rated at 60% or more. Or, if the vet has multiple disabilities, at least one must be ratable at 40% or more, and in combination the vet’s disabilities confer a combined rating of 70% or more.

Veterans who do not meet the minimum disability percent rating requirements for IU may be considered if they can show exceptional or unusual circumstances, such as that their disabilities directly interfere with their employability or require hospitalization often enough to make steady employment impractical. Or, that a secondary issue such as pain from an SC back injury makes competitive employment painful and unwise to attempt.

The veteran’s claim must show that service-connected disability or disabilities are “sufficient, without regard to other factors, to prevent performing the mental and/or physical tasks required to get or keep "substantially gainful employment.”

“Substantially gainful employment” is defined as “employment at which non-disabled individuals earn their livelihood with earnings comparable to the particular occupation in the community where the veteran resides.”

VA regulations also make it clear that substantially gainful employment is more than marginal employment, which is a secondary standard for evaluating a vet’s earnings. Marginal employment is defined as earning income that does not exceed the poverty threshold for one person as established by the Census Bureau. For 2021, that threshold is $13,100 for an individual under age 65. 

Vets in sheltered work environments, employed by family businesses or self-employed may earn more than marginal employment income and still be considered for IU.

Money earned by participating in the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA’s) Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) Program is not counted as income for TDIU purposes.

A vet who has a 100% disability rating according to the VA rating schedule is permitted to maintain substantially gainful employment, but an TDIU benefit recipient is not.

TDIU benefits parallel those of 100% schedular. The compensation is the same with identical special allowances for dependents, clothing, aid and attendance, travel, and special monthly compensation. A prepaid $10,000 is available upon application. Rehab, pharmacy, audiology, prosthetics, optometry, and other VA medical care is the same. There are some situations where dental care is also provided. One of the most important benefits for both TDIU and 100% schedular is CHAMP-VA for Tricare-like family medical care. Often with age and increasing difficulties with SC issues, a TDIU-vet will transition into 100% schedular.

 VA TDIU Eligibility Requirements:

Evidence that must be part of a veteran’s disability benefits claim to obtain IU / TDIU benefits includes:

• Medical evidence of the veteran’s current physical and mental condition, e.g., results of VA examinations, hospital reports, and/or outpatient records. As in other claims, the VA may schedule a medical examination if the veteran’s medical evidence is incomplete or inconsistent.

• Employment and work history for five years prior to the date on which the veteran became too disabled to work, as well as for any work performed after this date.

• Forms completed by each employer for whom the veteran worked during the 12-month period prior to the date the veteran last worked.

• Social Security Administration reports if the vet receives Social Security Disability benefits, if the veteran’s other evidence is insufficient to award compensation

• Records from the VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service (VR&E) if evidence suggests rehab was undertaken but unsuccessful or was found to be medically unfeasible. VR&E testing can be requested by any vet enrolled in VA health care. Social Security Disability records are persuasive.

If the TDIU benefit is granted, the vet must complete a VA employment questionnaire each year until the age of 69 to affirm that he or she remains incapable of maintaining substantially gainful employment.

VA disability raters are trained to consider TDIU in exceptional cases, yet about 40% of all totally disabled vets get that rating and 60% or so are 100% schedular. Examiners can't consider the vet’s age or distinguish between retirement and inability due to age as opposed to a true service-connected disability resulting in unemployability.

As in other cases, VA claims examiners may request additional information at any time to supplement or clarify evidence in a veteran’s claim. This, of course, slows the process. Submit as much persuasion as can be gathered!

Good luck with your claim. NOW –  HELP OTHER VETERANS!

Text of American Legion resolution supporting Gold Star Wives property tax exemption

WHEREAS, Since the Revolutionary War, more than one million American soldiers have died in battle and military conflicts; their families, who have endured these losses and the accompanying grief, are known as Gold Star Families and their spouses as Gold Star Wives; and Gold Star Families are a living legacy of each fallen soldier to help us all remember and honor these heroes by name and deed, and  

WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021 the Seventy-third General Assembly of the State of Colorado issued Senate Joint Resolution 21-010, resolving on behalf of the citizens “That we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, honor the pride and the pain of the parents and partners and children and siblings of our fallen heroes who lost his or her life serving our country and protecting our freedom; and recognize the families of these proud patriots with an expression of profound gratitude and respect” and 

 

WHEREAS, in 2006 the citizens of Colorado overwhelmingly approved by amendment to the State Constitution Article X Section 3.5 the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption for totally disabled service-connected military veterans; and in 2014 the Colorado Legislature expanded the Senior and Veteran Property Tax Exemption to include surviving spouses by HB14-1373, and 

 

WHEREAS, the sacrifices of Gold Star Families are to be honored with respect as well as material support and 

 

WHEREAS, surviving spouses of servicemembers who die on active duty are only by the technicality of their servicememember’s death not being in receipt of the exemption thereby denied the exemption, and 

 

WHEREAS, this distinction between survivors of totally disabled veterans already in receipt of the Disabled Property Tax Exemption and survivors of active duty servicemembers (“Gold Star Wives”) denied the exemption solely due to the death of their spouse while in service is an offense to the honor of the State, contrary to the spirit expressed by the Seventy-third General Assembly of the State of Colorado Senate Joint Resolution 21-010, and contrary to the intentions of Colorado citizens’ approval of Article X Section 3.5 as presented in the 2006 Referendum E, and  

 

WHEREAS, the American Legion Department of Colorado and the Gold Star Wives are both member organizations of the United Veterans Coalition of Colorado, and  

 

WHEREAS, either a legislative or constitutional amendment process being necessary, it may suffice that a redefinition of “disabled veteran” to include a death on active duty, or other such procedure as the General Assembly shall direct; and that surviving spouses of Colorado Air and Army National Guard members who die while activated by the Governor for State service should also receive such respect and benefits, it is therefore  

 

RESOLVED, by the American Legion Department of Colorado that inclusion of unremarried Gold Star Wives and unremarried surviving spouses of Colorado National Guard members who die while activated by the Governor for State service, be included in the Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption because it is both necessary and proper, that the United Veterans Coalition be informed for this to be part of its state legislative objectives until acted upon with a goal of implementation before 2023. 

Colorado Legislature Wraps Up, Gets Set for 2022

All hope for Gold Star Wives' property tax exemption rose suddenly during the last few days of the 2021 legislative session...and were shot down even faster! The House passed HB21-1002 unanimously but the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee destroyed hopes for this legislation with just a few minutes conversation among the Democrats. Party line vote: Dems=NO, GOP-YES, but the measure failed with Dems in the majority.

Oh, dear. I'm afraid we're back to the old drawing board.

 

COLORADO SENATE SNUBBED FAMILIES – KILLED GOLD STAR WIVES' PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION

June 7 2021: Colorado Senate killed Gold Star Wives bill for
given survivors of totally disabled veterans (HCR21-1002

Last week the Colorado Senate really disappointed me. It killed a bill to include Gold Star Wives (widows of troops who die in the line of duty) the same small property tax exemption given widows of totally disabled veterans.

Did senators think our widows don't need the exemption to keep their homes and survive on the puny $1350 per month VA death benefit?

Thousands of survivors of Colorado's disabled vets already get this exemption as they should – but the Senate refused it to our 140 Gold Star Wives. These survivors are denied the exemption only because their servicemembers died in the line of duty on active duty rather than as disabled veterans after active duty.

Esteemed Senators: did you give this any thought before you killed HCR21-1002, passed unanimously by the House?

 

Colorado Voters Have a Long Memory - especially about how veterans and their survivors are treated

I believe Colorado's Democrat legislators have initiated the more important advances in veterans' benefits, but it would be wrong to conclude that either party is truly disinterested or uncaring. Democrats controlled the House and Senate in 2006 under a Republican governor and are together credited with getting Referendum E in front of the voters. There, the constitutional amendment found overwhelming support. This established the Disabled Veterans Property Tax Exemption in 2007 and reflected well on both parties.

Yet Democrats were particularly uncaring on June 7, 2021 when the Colorado Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee voted down HCR21-1002 (by pure party line vote). The bill had been approved unanimously by the House to correct an awkward problem in our Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption. 

This small property tax exemption was initially offered to totally disabled veterans and saved them about $640 a year. The Legislature updated the exemption with HB14-1373 in 2014 to provide for veterans' survivors who were already in receipt of the exemption. Repeat: the exemption was for survivors of a vet already receiving the exemption.

Sadly, that language overlooked the real-world tragedy that not all troops survive to come home to be veterans. Colorado's current tax statute denies the exemption to every widow of every servicemember lost in the line of duty while on active service.

Get the distinction? Get disabled but survive to come home and the exemption is there for your survivor. Sacrifice far more and die in the line of duty and your survivor gets denied the exemption. Widows from World War II, Korea, Vietnam and recent conflicts are refused this exemption because their spouses died on duty, rather than surviving to come home and "be in receipt." 

HCR21-1002 was going to fix that unfortunate wording of the statute so our 140 Colorado Gold Star Widows could qualify for the same small partial property tax exemption. But the opportunity to do the right thing on June 7 was shot down when every Democrat on the state senate's veterans and military affairs committee voted against the bill. There were some heartless phrases thrown around that "we'll have to look at this important issue during next session" and "let's get focused on this next year for something by 2024."

These Democrats might not have known than 80% of these widows are over 60 and 40% are over 65. They've done without the exemption due veterans' widows since losing their husbands in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and more recent conflicts. The state senate turned its back on these survivors.

The Senate made a mistake. Voters took note.

 

C-123 Veterans Association Joins Colorado's United Veterans Coalition

To better support state and federal veterans' issues, The C-123 Veterans Association has affiliated with Colorado's United Veterans Coalition (UVC.) UVC is the single most effective voice for over 350,000 veterans in Colorado. It brings together the VA and nearly every interested organization and political entity in the state.

RADM Dick Young USNR (Ret.) was elected president last week. UVC will celebrate is annual banquet on June 27 and tickets are still available.

How'd that Colorado Senate vote go for Gold Star Wives' property tax exemption?

June 7 2021: HOW DID COLORADO STATE SENATORS VOTE TO PERMIT GOLD STAR WIDOWS THE SAME PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION COLORADO GIVES DISABLED VETS' WIDOWS? One Guess.

   DEMOCRATS = 100% NO              GOP = 100% YES

Interesting. And very, very  revealing. Every senator* who voted "YES" to honor our Gold Star Wives with SJR21-010 in May seemed to see things differently on June 7, and voted "NO" on HCR21-1002.

Thumbs down on spending $93,000 to permit these 140 widows of active-duty troops same small partial property tax exemption Colorado now gives survivors of our 100% disabled veterans.

Here are their empty words from SJR21-010 tossed to the wind, now shown to be useless and meaningless:

"That we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly honor the pride and the pain of the parents and partners and children and siblings of our fallen heroes and recognize the families of these proud patriots with an expression of profound gratitude and respect."

* voting no:

• • State Sen. Julie Gonzales 
  D District 34, Chair

• 
  

• • State Sen. James Coleman
  D District 33, Vice Chair
  
  • State Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis
  D District 17
  
  
  
  
  
  

Gold Star Wives Are Due the Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption

 

Colorado proudly honors survivors of our totally disabled veterans...thousands of them,
but ignores 140 equally worthy Gold Star Wives

THE REST OF THE STORY: The Brief Life & Sudden Death of Colorado's Gold Star Wives' Tax Exemption

Not about to waste a perfectly good opportunity to turn virtually every veterans' wrath against them, yesterday the Colorado Senate Veterans Committee killed HCR21-1002. 

Ever budget-conscious, the committee's discussion indicated they felt it terribly unwise to "waste" $94,000 permitting widows of active-duty troops the same very modest property tax break now given widows of our 100% disabled veterans. Colorado has 140 widows of active-duty troops, all denied the small exemption because the awkward wording of the 2014 legislation restricted the exemption to widows of a veteran already getting the exemption.

Get it?

a) Die on active duty = no widow's tax exemption, or

b) Die after active duty as a disabled vet = widow gets exemption.

Troops call this kind of situation "bass-ack-wards." 

The rest of the story? After a unanimous House vote for HCR21-1002, it was killed because some senators might to do "something" next year to go to the voters in 2023 for some relief for the widows in 2024.

"Something" apparently being a larger overhaul of the entire property tax exemption issue that costs $150,000,000 each year. Gold Star Wives  (mostly elderly of World War II, Korean Conflict and Vietnam eras) would have added 0.00062 to that $150M.

I think the House could have chosen a better approach to the Gold Star Wives, something easier than the constitutional amendment HCR21-1002 required. The legislature took it on themselves to include widows of 100% disabled vets who were receiving the exemption by HB14-1373, not an amendment which is more difficult. 

All the House had to do was use 21 new words refine the definition of "qualifying veteran" to include "or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who died in the line of duty on active service" in a  new statute.

Here's what it took to include survivors in the original 2014 bill:

39-3-203. Property tax exemption - qualifications. (1.5) (a.5)

FOR PROPERTY TAX YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2015, FIFTY PERCENT OF THE FIRST TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OF ACTUAL VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY THAT AS OF THE ASSESSMENT DATE IS OWNER-OCCUPIED AND IS USED AS THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF AN OWNER-OCCUPIER WHO IS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A QUALIFYING DISABLED VETERAN WHO PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED AN EXEMPTION UNDER PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1.5) IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.

Here's the redefined "qualifying veteran":

SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A QUALIFYING DISABLED VETERAN WHO PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED AN EXEMPTION or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who died in the line of duty on active service UNDER PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1.5) IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.

And that's "the rest of the story!" 

Here's the Colorado Bar Association's statement:

"Gold Star Wives, survivors of active-duty servicemembers, are denied the exemption because the state constitution (Amendment X Section 3.5) allows the exemption to survivors of veterans already in receipt of the benefit. Colorado legislators apparently did not consider the issue of active-duty deaths. Loss of the servicemember on active duty precludes the 'already in receipt of the benefit' requirement. Proposed is a redefinition of a qualified recipient to include survivors of active duty servicemembers who die in the line of duty."

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.

   

THE BIG PROBLEM: How to pay for TDIU Vets Getting the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

 There's no getting around the biggest obstacle to any Colorado veterans benefit – just where the heck do we get the money to pay for it?

In Colorado's state house that is the Number One question on every bill. Trying to get the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption to cover VA 100% permanent Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU) vets will be no different. 

I don't know the necessary procedures but will float a couple ideas here. First, the goal is to get the exemption for approximately 4622 veterans now rated 100% disabled TDIU by the VA. That's approximately $2.6 million added to the overall Homestead Exemption program costing over $159 million. 

Currently, veterans and their survivors are only 2% of that total with the exemption restricted to VA 100% schedular vets, so adding TDIU will make veterans just under 4% of the program. The number of vets that I use already considers the fact that 13.3% are also able to claim the senior exemption, and already factors in the point that 80% of all the Colorado TDIU vets own homes to exempt. Finally, the average value of each exemption is considered, leaving the goal at $2.6 million.

The Legislature needs to appreciate that voters already approved every 100% disabled veteran for the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption. The wording of Referendum E in 2006 was very clear, as was the explanation in the Blue Book. It was the legislators, not the voters, who opted with the enabling legislation for Article X Section 3.5 to invent the unemployability barrier. We need to.get our tax laws back into line with the state constitution!

– POSSIBILITIES –

1. Cut the average veteran and survivor exemption benefit in half to stretch the present funding to include TDIU recipients. The Legislature already has the power to do this per Article X Section 3.5 of the state constitution

2.  Likewise, reduce the benefit to each senior homestead exemption to capture $2.6M. This would be a much less severe reduction for the recipients than #1 above, approximately 0.02 for about just $11 less per year per exemption

3. Divert a portion of the funds CDMVA now uses for grants

3.  Add an optional $5 contribution to each state income tax return

4. Divert $2.6M from Colorado Economic Development Commission

5. Ideas??