Girard Conti appealed a decision of the BTLA that upheld the Town of Barnstead’s denial of an elderly property tax exemption. Barnstead had adopted RSA 72:39-a, granting a real estate tax exemption through the reduction of the assessed value of the taxable real estate provided the taxpayer was 65 years of age or older and had income of less than $30,000. Conti had argued before the BTLA that his income from the Veterans Administration for a service-connected disability should have been excluded, which if it had been excluded would have qualified Conti for the exemption. The BTLA ruled, based on a plain reading of the statute, that Barnstead properly calculated the Conti's income which exceeded the maximum income level.
On appeal, Conti argued that the BTLA’s decision conflicts with federal law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Congress may preempt a state law through federal legislation and it may do so through express language in a statute. Congress may also implicitly preempt a state law, rule, or other state action. It may do so either through “field” preemption or “conflict” preemption. Conflict preemption exists where “compliance with both state and federal law is impossible,” or where “the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”
The Court interpreted Conti’s appeal as arguing that by allowing Barnstead to include Veterans’ disability income when determining elderly exemption qualification that this constituted an obstacle to accomplishment of Congressional objectives. However, as the Court pointed out, the federal law on the status of Veterans’ disability benefits only exempted those benefits from the claim of creditors, shielding that income from attachment or levy. The Court had previously ruled that federal Veterans’ benefits could be considered when calculating alimony and child support obligations. Therefore, by including the petitioner’s veterans’ benefits as income to determine eligibility for a property tax exemption — as required by RSA 72:39-a — this did not run afoul of federal law and BTLA decision did not violate the Supremacy Clause.
READ MORE IN COURT DECISION!
Practice Pointer: RSA 72:39-a requires the applicant applying for an elderly exemption to establish that their income “from all sources” is not greater than the amount adopted by the municipality. The phrase “from all sources” would include Veterans’ disability benefits and this is not contrary to the governing provisions of federal law.
*This is a Final Order issued by the Supreme Court that disposes of a case that has been briefed but in which no opinion is issued. Although this Final Order has no precedential value it does provide helpful guidance for municipal officials.