No. 6069 | N.H. | Apr 24, 1970
To the House of Representatives:
The undersigned justices of the supreme court submit the following answer to the question contained in your resolution adopted April 14, 1970 and filed in this court on April 22, 1970, with reference to House Bill No. 35, entitled “An Act clarifying the statute providing for exemptions to persons over seventy against their real estate tax. ”
The bill provides an exemption from taxation of residential real estate, as defined by RSA 72:29 (II) to the assessed value of $5,000 if owned by a resident seventy years of age or over. The bill provid.es that it shall apply to those who resided in the state one year preceding the taxable year in which exemption is claimed and limits the exemption to those having a net income in the preceding year of less than $4,000, if single, and $5,000, if married. The method of determination of the income is specified in the bill and there is a maximum amount of assets that may be owned by any person applying for an exemption.
The constitutionality of exemptions from tax laws as applied to the elderly under our state constitution was considered in Opinion of the Justices, 105 N. H. 22, 24, 192 A.2d 22" court="N.H." date_filed="1963-06-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/opinion-of-the-justices-8048284?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8048284">192 A.2d 22, 23-24. What was said in that case is controlling and applicable to the
We conclude that House Bill 35 is not in violation of the state constitution.
The constitutionality of House Bill 35 under the Constitution of the United States naturally suggests the question whether the bill constitutes a denial of equal protection of the law. Recent cases have applied a strict standard of equal protection of the law in certain areas. Thus in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1969-04-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/shapiro-v-thompson-107901?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="107901">394 U. S. 618, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600, 89 S. Ct. 1322, it was held that denial of welfare assistance to residents who had not met a one-year waiting period requirement was unconstitutional. In Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1969-12-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hall-v-beals-107999?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="107999">396 U. S. 45, 24 L. Ed. 2d 214, 90 S. Ct. 200, there was an indication that residence requirements for voting in presidential elections were suspect. In Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1969-10-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/kramer-v-union-free-school-district-no-15-107971?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="107971">395 U. S. 621, 23 L. Ed. 2d 583, 89 S. Ct. 1886 it was pointed out that special
Our advisory opinion pertaining to the Constitution of the United States is necessarily limited by the fact that no memorandum has been submitted indicating what questions of constitutionality have been raised and the need of an immediate opinion for the special session about to adjourn.
The bill provides that the exemption must be filed on April 15 on forms not yet prepared by the Tax Commission. This is an obvious impossibility if the act is to be effective in 1970, and presumably a different date should be determined if the bill is to be passed and made effective in the taxable year 1970.
April 24,1970.