The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that veterans' disability benefits must be included in income calculations for elderly property tax exemptions, affirming a decision that denied relief to a Barnstead veteran whose total income exceeded the $30,000 threshold.
The court issued its decision Aug. 14, 2025, in *Appeal of Girard Conti*, rejecting the veteran's argument that federal disability benefits should be excluded from income calculations because they are not subject to federal income tax. The ruling clarifies how New Hampshire municipalities must interpret income requirements for senior property tax relief programs.
Girard Conti, a Barnstead resident and military veteran, sought an elderly exemption for the 2023 tax year under RSA 72:39-a. The exemption provides property tax relief to residents 65 years of age or older with annual income below $30,000. Conti receives monthly federal veterans' disability benefits and Social Security income.
The Town of Barnstead calculated Conti's total income, including his veterans' benefits, and determined it exceeded the $30,000 limit for the exemption. Town officials denied his application based on this calculation.
Conti appealed to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals, arguing that his veterans' disability benefits should not count toward the income threshold because federal law exempts such payments from income tax. The veteran contended that including tax-exempt benefits in the income calculation violated federal law and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The BTLA rejected Conti's appeal after a hearing, concluding that New Hampshire law requires consideration of "all moneys received, from any source" when calculating income for the exemption. The board determined that RSA 72:39-a's broad definition of income encompasses veterans' disability benefits, regardless of their federal tax treatment. Conti's request for a rehearing was also denied.
The state's highest court reviewed Conti's constitutional challenge de novo, applying the most rigorous standard of review for questions of constitutional law. The court examined whether the BTLA's interpretation of state law conflicted with federal statutes protecting veterans' benefits.
RSA 72:39-a defines income broadly as "all moneys received, from any source including social security or pension payments." The statute allows municipalities to offer elderly exemptions under RSA 72:39-b, though participation remains optional for towns and cities.
Conti's case highlights the intersection of federal veterans' benefits law and state property tax policy. Veterans' disability compensation is generally protected from taxation and certain state actions under federal law, but the scope of those protections in state tax exemption calculations has been less clear.
The Supreme Court's affirmation of the BTLA decision establishes that New Hampshire's statutory definition of income for elderly exemptions includes all monetary receipts, regardless of federal tax treatment. The ruling suggests that state tax relief programs may apply broader income definitions than federal tax law without violating constitutional principles.
Property tax exemptions for elderly residents represent one of the most common forms of local tax relief in New Hampshire. These programs aim to help seniors on fixed incomes remain in their homes despite rising property values and tax assessments. The income thresholds and exemption amounts vary by municipality based on local adoption and implementation.
For veterans specifically, the ruling may affect eligibility for various property tax relief programs beyond elderly exemptions. New Hampshire offers several veteran-specific property tax benefits, including exemptions for disabled veterans and their surviving spouses under different statutory provisions.
The decision provides clarity for municipal assessors and boards of selectmen in calculating income eligibility for tax exemption programs. Local officials must now include all monetary receipts, including federally tax-exempt veterans' benefits, when determining whether applicants meet income thresholds.
Conti's case was resolved through a written order under Supreme Court Rule 20(3), which allows the court to decide appeals without oral argument when the legal issues are straightforward. This procedure is commonly used for cases that do not require extensive legal analysis or present novel questions of law.
The ruling affects how New Hampshire interprets the relationship between federal benefit programs and state tax policy. While federal law protects veterans' disability benefits from federal taxation, states retain authority to define income broadly for their own tax relief programs.
Municipalities across New Hampshire that offer elderly exemptions or similar income-based tax relief programs should apply consistent income calculation methods that include all monetary receipts as defined by state statute. The decision removes uncertainty about whether federally tax-exempt benefits must be excluded from such calculations.
The court's affirmation of the BTLA decision reinforces the principle that state tax exemption programs operate independently from federal tax policy, allowing broader income definitions for local relief programs while maintaining compliance with constitutional requirements.