Very kind article from the National Veterans Legal Services Project

The National Veterans Legal Services Project (NVLSP) is a wonderful organization dedicated to America's veterans and our families. They just did a nice "puff" piece and video on me. NVLSP and its co-directors are acknowledged by the entire veteran community as instrumental in forcing VA to honor many commitments to veterans.

From military sexual trauma, immunizations, toxic exposures, unfair discharges, and many other causes have found NVLSP and its volunteer attorneys, law school veterans law clinics, and associated law firms to be powerful allies. Always pro bono.

    

In my own experience, NVLSP and Bart Stitchman brought their expertise, as well as that of the Yale School of Law, into the fray our C-123 Veterans Association was having as we fought for Agent Orange exposure care and benefits from the VA. It took some years, but success was sweet, indeed, when Bob McDonald signed the regulation (38 U.S.C.§ 3.307(a)(6)(v) (the "C-123 Rule") for us on June 18, 2015.
 
NVLSP has never charged veteran clients for their service or even expenses. For example, they saved our C-123 Association over $75,000 just on fighting for FOIA responses, something the Air Force didn't seem eager to release.

NVSLP and Perkins Coie have represented us pro bono before the US District Court in Washington, successes that were noted by the Federal Bar Association in 2018, and at the USAF Board for Correction of Military Records. Bart and his colleagues are top-rated for their proper use of donations. NVLSP is one of the Combined Federal Campaign agencies. I encourage all veterans to consider helping other vets by donating here.

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

I'm disappointed with passive, weak VFW support of racial justice and equality in America

Dear Veterans of Foreign Wars,

I am a life member, son of a life member and grandson of a life member.

My concern is with our VFW national approach to unjust racism.

A couple months back the new VFW national commander tried to quiet the storms caused during his installation when he said, "Black Lives DO Matter." Note his "DO" in all-caps. Emphatic! That led to an all-members letter to back-paddle his words. In this, VFW has chosen a coward's position regarding today's racial turmoil. https://drive.google.com/.../1qqASXd4Pc4.../view...

Dear Mr. Roesch,

I am alarmed and disappointed with the inadequate VFW response to our country's racial unrest.

VFW continues our passive approach, surrendering any moral claims to truly care or advance meaningful solutions. Our position remains a tepid non-solution "against racism" claim while doing nothing more positive. Empty words, little moral authority, we comfort nobody.

In 2016 VFW National Commander Keith Harman wrote, “We have no tolerance for racism. Our nation is great because of the diversity of its people, and there is no place within this organization for a differing opinion.” 

But five years later, we've done nothing useful. Of course we're against racism. Even bigots insist in their hatred and ignorance that they are not racists. 

Together with these bigots, we merely whisper we're against racism but do too little to matter. Why don't post or department reports cover minority issues and recruiting? When was the last article in our magazine or newsletters focused on overcoming the racial divide?

These last seven months I have been demonstrating, along with my church and other community folks - not protesting, just quietly trying to support of what I consider racial justice and equality. And peace.

After the first few days there were phone calls from VFW members to the post commander here in

Fort Collins, complaining about my sitting at a street corner in my wheelchair with a sign reading "VFW Against Racism." The post was concerned it would offend members even more than merely verbally stating we're against racism. 

Imagine: VFW members complaining about an important value officially proclaimed all around the county, but complaining about thisVFW value publicly proclaimed by my little poster.

This situation has parallels in combat, but this time we VFW troops hear the sound of the guns and quietly march away rather than towards our duty. As a 30-year life member, I'm ashamed. This is a battle we needed to win long ago but is instead a conflict being gifted to our children and grandchildren.

Of course, we're busy falsely assuring ourselves VFW and other veterans organizations are somehow not contributing in any way to these troubles! None of the lingering problem of racial turmoil is our responsibility and we are no part of any solution. WRONG!

This head-in-the sand, deliberate self-deception is not the solution we as warriors ...even if as old warriors...are responsible for delivering to our children and grandchildren.

Respectfully and in brotherhood,

Wesley T. Carter, USAF Ret.
Life Member, St Cloud Post 428

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??

Colorado Legislature: Sponsor Needed for 100% Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

 TOTAL DISABILITY for INDIVIDUAL UNEMPLOYABILITY
= Equals =
100% VA Total & Permanent Line of Duty Disability

Every Colorado 100% VA disabled veteran should be eligible for the Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption. It is wrong to deny TDIU vets the exemption the voters approved for ALL 100% VA disabled veterans when we approved Referendum E in 2006, Colorado Constitution Article X Section 3.5

A veteran is considered totally and permanently disabled if they have received a disability rating of 100% for service-connected disability compensation and the VA does not expect the condition to improve. Such language indicates that the rating of total disability is permanent.

By illogically and unfairly denying them a state constitutional protection, Colorado disrespects over 4000 TDIU veterans rated by the VA as 100% totally and permanently disabled in the line of duty. Colorado denies TDIU vets, totally disabled for the rest of their lives, our Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption. In doing so Colorado shows its disregard for their dedicated military service and their life-changing sacrifices. 

Colorado is unique among the states in denying benefits to this group of 100% VA disabled veterans.

 

Colorado Legislature: Sponsor Needed for 100% Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

 

Proposed Bill to Support 100% Disabled Veterans

Colorado Legislature: Sponsor Needed for 100% Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

Proposed Bill to Support 100% Disabled Veterans

Colorado Legislature: Sponsor Needed for 100% Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

Colorado Legislature: Sponsor Needed for 100% Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption

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.