Louisiana House Bill HB395

Louisiana 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/2/22
• Refer: 3/2/22
• Refer: 3/14/22
• Refer: 3/29/22
• Refer: 4/4/22
• Engrossed: 4/12/22
• Refer: 4/13/22
• Report Pass: 5/16/22
• Enrolled: 5/26/22
• Chaptered: 6/2/22
• Passed: 6/2/22

Caption

(Constitutional Amendment) Removes the requirement that certain property owners annually certify income to receive the special assessment level for ad valorem property taxes (EN NO IMPACT LF RV See Note)

Impact

If approved, the amendment would particularly benefit homeowners who are permanently totally disabled, allowing them to maintain their special assessment level without the additional administrative hurdle of annual income certification. This change could lead to significant tax savings for these homeowners and promote housing stability. Additionally, the removal of this requirement has implications for the state's revenue from property taxes, which may be impacted if a significant number of disabled homeowners qualify for the special assessment under the new rules.

Summary

House Bill 395 proposes an amendment to Article VII, Section 18(G)(1)(a)(iv) of the Constitution of Louisiana. This amendment aims to ease the property tax burden on certain property owners by removing the requirement that those who are permanently totally disabled must annually certify their income to retain eligibility for a special assessment level on their properties. This provision is intended to simplify the tax process for eligible individuals and provide them with greater financial security regarding their property taxes.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 395 appears to be largely supportive, particularly among advocacy groups and individuals who represent disabled citizens. Supporters argue that this change helps reduce the bureaucratic burden on those who often face challenges due to their disabilities. There may, however, be some apprehension from fiscal conservatives who are concerned about the implications for state revenue and whether such exemptions could set a precedent for further tax reforms.

Contention

While the bill passed unanimously, discussions may have touched on the fiscal impacts of amending this requirement. Opponents of similar measures often argue that tax exemptions can lead to potential shortfalls in state funding, which can affect public services. Nonetheless, in the absence of notable opposition during the voting process, it appears that this bill was viewed favorably by the majority of legislators, reflecting a commitment to supporting vulnerable populations within the state.