Amendment 2: Tax Break for Deployed Military Personnel

Should the Legislature provide added homestead property tax exemption for military service members deployed in the previous year?

Amendment 2 would require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. For the most part, the state Constitution bars the Legislature from tinkering with property taxes without a vote of the citizenry, and therefore this proposal must be placed on the ballot, rather than approved by a vote of the Legislature.

The tax calculation

The exempt amount would be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year the person was deployed on active duty divided by the number of days in that year. Accordingly, the exempt amount for someone deployed for six months would be 50 percent; for someone deployed three months it would be 25 percent.

State Rep. Mike Horner, a Republican from Kissimmee, joined by the Finance & Tax Council, filed the proposed amendment on Feb. 11, 2009. Majority Republican Whip, Senator Andy Gardiner, filed a similar bill in the senate (SJR 1302). From there, the proposed amendment flew through both the House and the Senate, passing unanimously.

The Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) looked at the statistics and adopted an indeterminate negative fiscal impact that begins in FY 2011-12. That time period was chosen because the proposed amendment would require voter approval and could not take effect before 2011. However, if the amendment had been in effect for FY 2009-10, the REC estimates, the potential statewide negative fiscal impact would have been approximately $13 million, assuming current millage rates.

More than 25,000 potentially affected

According to the REC, approximately 25,525 military personnel who claim Florida as their home of record were deployed overseas on active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in 2008. They include: Army(765); Florida National Guard (301); Marine Corps Reserve (135); Navy Reserve (124) and Air Force Reserve (85). No Coast Guard or Coast Guard Reserve personnel were reported. Deployment is for one year. Data were not available to determine the total number of military personnel who are deployed outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii. Eighty percent of military personnel are enlisted.

Currently, there is no known organized opposition to the proposed amendment, although critics question the fairness of singling out soldiers who own property and giving them a benefit unavailable to soldiers who don't own property. They also question the Legislature's role in designating which military operations are worthy of extending the benefit to the soldiers fighting in those operations and which military operations are not worthy. Taking any amount of tax dollars away from governments strapped for money in a down economy is also questioned by critics.

But at least one government body has come forward in full support. In 2009, the Miami-Dade County Commission passed a resolution urging state legislators to pass the bill.

"The property tax credit proposed by SJR 1302 and HJR 833 would serve to help military families when one or more family members are deployed overseas, especially during these trying economic times," the resolution states.

If approved by 60 percent of the voters at the 2010 general election, the proposed amendment will take effect in January 2011.

Comments Received:

(View all comments)

10/8/2010 - M. Anderson
Aren't civilians already giving enough aid to the military, the bloated Pentagon budget is nearly half our treasury? Many were in opposition to this war from day one but Bush went forward with HIS plans. This war is not conducted in our name and NO we will not make any more sacrifice. The value of our assets has already been eroded. Our prosperity has vanished except for the military industrial complex. The GI education bill has been extended to the spouse and children of the service member. The military receives preference in hiring. There are discounts for travel, meals and entertainment offered to only the military. Has anyone seen similar offers to the homeless who have recently lost their homes to foreclosure or job loss? Florida should not give more to the military they already have exemptions. How can they keep their homes when serving overseas while others are losing their homes to foreclosure? Why has the US become a military state? Communities do not collect property tax on Federally owned military bases. I cannot morally vote for Amendment 2.

10/10/2010 - J. Putnam
Subject: Tax break for officers not needed
The ones most likely to benefit from this bill are the ones who least need or deserve the benefits, that is the officers. Officers in the US military services do not need the tax break for several reasons. First, the officers are well compensated for their service...we pay them well, often times more they would earn if they worked comparable jobs in the civilian world. They also have good benefits...free health care, subsized food and an excellent pension plan that starts after 20 years of service. Many even use the GI Bill to pay for their child's collge education, in some cases at exclusive and expensive privale colleges. All of these things make it unnecessary to offer the officers another benifit. On the otherhand, we should be working on breaks for the low ranking (and young) enlisted troops who earn little, and often get out before 20 years (so no pension). In addition, the young troops are the ones most frequently risking their lives. Too often officers and non-combat troops are benefiting from the well-intentioned efforts of the citizens to care for its "warriors". I believe Amendentment 2 is just such a misguided effort.An Air Force Officer

10/14/2010 - R. Bachman
I'm against amendment 2 because servicemember's who serve overseas received cost of living allowances, sea pay, foriegn duty pay, combat duty pay and many other benefits that are tax exempt. This amendment 2 is not thought out at all because servicemembers are well compensated. How about giving the small business man a tax break or lower property taxes for all homeowners. Who is responsible for putting this amendment on the ballot?