[Senate Report 111-46]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 108
111th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 111-46
======================================================================
MILITARY SPOUSES RESIDENCY RELIEF ACT
_______
July 15, 2009.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Akaka, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[To accompany S.475]
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereinafter,
``Committee''), to which was referred the bill (S.475) to amend
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (hereinafter, ``SCRA'') to
guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with
regard to matters of residency, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass.
Introduction
On February 25, 2009, Committee Ranking Member Richard Burr
introduced S.475, the proposed ``Military Spouses Residency
Relief Act.'' Senator Dianne Feinstein is an original
cosponsor. Senators John Barrasso, Evan Bayh, Mark Begich,
Christopher S. Bond, Sherrod Brown, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning,
Roland W. Burris, Robert C. Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin L.
Cardin, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn,
Jim DeMint, Richard Durbin, John Ensign, Judd Gregg, Orrin G.
Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James M. Inhofe, Johnny Isakson,
Mike Johanns, Tim Johnson, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph I.
Lieberman, Blanche L. Lincoln, Mel Martinez, Lisa Murkowski,
James E. Risch, Jeff Sessions, Richard C. Shelby, Olympia J.
Snowe, Arlen Specter, Jon Tester, John Thune, Mark Udall, David
Vitter, Roger F. Wicker, and Ron Wyden were later added as
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee.
On April 29, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on
legislation pending before the Committee. Testimony on S.475,
among other bills, was offered by: Robert Jackson, Assistant
Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States; Raymond C. Kelley, National
Legislative Director, AMVETS; R. Chuck Mason, Legislative
Attorney, Congressional Research Service; Ian de Planque,
Assistant Director for Claims Service, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion; and Rebecca
Poynter, Director, Military Spouse Business Organization.
Committee Meeting
On May 21, 2009, the Committee met in open session to
consider legislation pending before the Committee. Among the
measures so considered was S.475. The Committee voted without
dissent to report favorably S.475 to the Senate.
Summary of S.475 as Reported
S.475 (hereinafter, ``the Committee bill'') would extend
several SCRA protections to certain spouses of servicemembers:
Section 2 would, in certain circumstances, allow the
spouse of a servicemember, for purposes of voting in
Federal, state, or local elections, to retain residency
in a state from which the spouse is absent.
Section 3 would, in certain circumstances, allow the
spouse of a servicemember, for purposes of income taxes
and personal property taxes, to retain residency in a
tax jurisdiction from which the spouse is absent.
Section 4 would suspend certain residency
requirements for the spouse of a servicemember seeking
to exercise certain land rights, such as mining claims
or homesteading, on public lands.
Background and Discussion
The Committee bill contains several provisions designed to
afford certain SCRA protections to the spouses of military
personnel.
Congress has long recognized that the men and women of our
military should be afforded civil legal protections, in order
to allow them ``to devote their entire energy to the defense
needs of the Nation.'' 50 U.S.C. App. 502. Currently, these
protections are provided by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
or SCRA.
Among a wide range of protections, the SCRA allows a
servicemember to maintain his or her residency for certain
purposes, such as voting, income taxes, and personal property
taxes, in a state from which the servicemember is absent in
compliance with military orders. These protections essentially
allow a servicemember to retain a ``home'' state while he or
she is ordered to new locations by the military and to avoid
many of the difficulties, burdens, and distractions associated
with a permanent change of duty station.
The amendments to the SCRA that would be made by the
Committee bill would provide military spouses with SCRA
residency protections similar to those afforded to
servicemembers.
Sec. 2. Guarantee of residency for spouses of military personnel for
voting purposes.
Section 2 of the Committee bill would, in certain
circumstances, allow the spouse of a servicemember, for
purposes of voting in Federal, state, or local elections, to
retain residency in a state from which the spouse is absent.
Background. Under section 705 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App.
595), for purposes of voting in Federal, state, or local
elections, if a servicemember leaves a state in compliance with
military or naval orders, the servicemember will not, solely
based on that absence, be deemed to have lost residence or
domicile in that state, be deemed to have acquired residence or
domicile in any other state, or be deemed to have become a
resident of any other state. These protections allow the
servicemember, as he or she is moved around the country by the
military, to continue voting in the state he or she considers
home and to avoid the confusion and difficulties of frequently
changing his or her voter registration.
However, if the servicemember's spouse moves with the
servicemember, that spouse is not afforded the same SCRA
protections. The negative impact this may have on military
spouses was described at the Committee's April 29, 2009,
hearing by Rebecca Poynter:
Military Spouses are disenfranchised from voting;
often times not arriving to a new state in time to vote
in primaries and do not have ample opportunity to get
to know the Federal, state or local candidates or
adequate time to learn their policies and legislative
agendas. It is confusing when one state allows a
military spouse to vote via absentee ballot, yet the
state where the spouse is physically located does not *
* *.
Similarly, in an April 28, 2009, letter to the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Committee, the Air Force Association
stressed that ``the burdens placed on military spouses to
simply exercise their Constitutional right to vote are a
constant source of consternation and frustration for our
military families.''
Committee Bill. Section 2 of the Committee bill would amend
section 705 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 595) to add a new
subsection providing that, for purposes of voting in Federal,
state, or local elections, if a spouse of a servicemember
leaves a state in order to accompany the servicemember who is
absent from that same state in compliance with military or
naval orders, the spouse will not, solely based on that
absence, be deemed to have lost residence or domicile in that
state, be deemed to have acquired residence or domicile in any
other state, or be deemed to have become a resident of any
other state. These changes would apply with respect to absences
from states on or after the date of enactment, regardless of
the date of the relevant military or naval orders.
These changes will allow certain military spouses, like
servicemembers, to vote in the states they consider home and
will reduce the confusion and difficulties now encountered by
military spouses attempting to exercise their right to vote.
Sec. 3. Determination for tax purposes of residence of spouses of
military personnel.
Section 3 of the Committee bill would, in certain
circumstances, allow the spouse of a servicemember, for
purposes of income taxes and personal property taxes, to retain
residency in a tax jurisdiction from which the spouse is
absent.
Background. Under section 511(a) of the SCRA (50 U.S.C.
App. 571), a servicemember does not lose or acquire residence
or domicile, for purposes of income taxes and personal property
taxes, based on the fact that the servicemember is absent from
or present in any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely
in compliance with military orders. Under section 511(b) of the
SCRA, the servicemember's military compensation will not be
considered income in a tax jurisdiction where the servicemember
is serving in accordance with military orders and is not a
resident. Also, under section 511(c), the personal property of
a servicemember will not be deemed to be present in a tax
jurisdiction in which the servicemember is serving in
accordance with military orders, unless that jurisdiction is
the servicemember's domicile or residence.
With these protections, if a servicemember is ordered to a
duty location in a new state, the servicemember is free to
bring to the new state his or her personal property, such as an
automobile, without risk that the property will be taxed in
that state. Also, the servicemember will not be required to pay
income taxes on his or her military income in a state other
than the one he or she has declared as his or her home state.
However, in some states, if the servicemember's personal
property is jointly titled with his or her spouse, the SCRA
protection regarding personal property taxes will not apply. In
fact, in 1992, the National Military Family Association
testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that,
``in some States, [the family] car must be registered in the
servicemember's name only in order for the family to be
protected against personal property tax'' and that, ``[i]n
addition to creating difficulties if the servicemember dies or
in cases of divorce, the current situation has left many
military spouses feeling they are perceived as excess
baggage.''
More recently, the Department of Defense submitted
testimony for the Committee's April 29, 2009, hearing
addressing the same issue. In part, the Department of Defense
provided this explanation of the current problem:
(i) Section 511 of the SCRA states that the personal
property of a servicemember shall not be deemed to be
located within a tax jurisdiction of the United States
if the servicemember is not a resident or domiciliary
of the jurisdiction in which the servicemember is
serving in compliance with military orders.
(ii) Many states conclude that property (most often
this is an automobile) jointly held by a servicemember
and spouse is not protected from taxation by Section
511 of the SCRA.
(iii) Thus to ensure the tax benefit, the
servicemember must register the property in his or her
name only. This is contrary to the recommendations that
we provide Servicemembers for estate planning purposes.
In addition, at the Committee's April 29, 2009, hearing,
Rebecca Poynter provided a description of how this impacts
military families:
For personal property; current, and often
conflicting, state laws create financial and
administrative burdens for the military spouse
resulting in the suppression of assets. While an active
duty servicemember may title, register, and maintain, a
car in their home state, their spouse may not. With
each move, if a spouse chooses to keep his/her joint
tenancy of personal property, they must change the
registration and/or titling to the new state; requiring
the spouse pay several hundred dollars each time they
relocate. To alleviate these types of fees, many
spouses are forced to put all property in the name of
the servicemember.
Military families are also impacted by the current state of
the law regarding state income taxes. There are significant
differences between the states, ranging from states that have
no income tax to those that impose up to an 11% marginal income
tax. Because the income of a military spouse is not protected
under the SCRA, a spouse's income may be taxed in any
jurisdiction where the spouse moves to accompany the
servicemember. As a result, if a working military spouse moves
around the country with the servicemember, their family income
may vary significantly based on where the servicemember is sent
by the military.
In addition to the potential financial burdens this may
cause for military families, the military spouse may be
required to file tax returns in multiple jurisdictions. The
complexities of this situation were described by a military
spouse in the attachment to testimony for the Committee's April
29, 2009, hearing:
Taxes are a confusing mess. My husband has residency
in one state and I have residency in another state.
Just this year our tax attorney had to redo our taxes
because she was confused about both of our states of
residence * * *. Next year is going to be even more
confusing when I have a business registered in one
state. My husband is a resident in another state and I
will have been a resident of both Virginia and
California * * *.
Committee Bill. Section 3 of the Committee bill would amend
section 511 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 571) to provide that,
for purposes of income taxes and personal property taxes, the
spouse of a servicemember will not be deemed to have lost or
acquired domicile or residence by reason of being absent from
or present in a tax jurisdiction solely to be with a
servicemember who is in compliance with military orders and has
the same original residence or domicile as the spouse. In
addition, it would add a new subsection to section 511
providing that income for services performed by the spouse of a
servicemember will not be deemed to be income in a tax
jurisdiction where the spouse is located solely to be with the
servicemember who is serving there in compliance with military
orders.
Also, the Committee bill would amend section 511 to provide
that the personal property of the spouse of a servicemember
will not be deemed to be present in a tax jurisdiction in which
the servicemember is serving in accordance with military
orders, unless that jurisdiction is the servicemember's or the
spouse's domicile or residence. These changes would apply with
respect to any state or local income tax return filed for any
taxable year beginning with the taxable year that includes the
date of enactment.
These changes will allow spouses to title personal property
in their own names or jointly with their servicemember-spouses,
without the potential tax ramifications that are possible under
current law. In addition, these changes will reduce some of the
confusion, difficulties, and burdens now faced by military
families when they are moved to a new state.
Sec. 4. Suspension of land rights residency requirements for spouses of
military personnel.
Section 4 of the Committee bill would suspend certain
residency requirements for the spouse of a servicemember
seeking to exercise certain land rights, such as mining claims
or homesteading, on public lands.
Background. Under section 508 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App.
568), a servicemember is entitled to have certain residency
requirements suspended for purposes of exercising land rights,
such as mining claims or homesteading, on public lands. This
protection applies with respect to requirements related to the
establishment of residency within a limited time. Those
requirements will be suspended for a servicemember seeking
entry onto public lands until 180 days after termination of or
release from military service. Similar rights are not provided
to the spouses of servicemembers.
Committee Bill. Section 4 of the Committee bill would amend
section 508 of the SCRA to suspend certain residency
requirements for the spouse of a servicemember seeking entry
onto public lands. This protection would apply with respect to
requirements related to the establishment of residency within a
limited time. Those requirements would be suspended for the
spouse of a servicemember seeking entry onto public lands until
180 days after the servicemember's termination of or release
from military service. These changes would apply with respect
to servicemembers in the military on or after the date of
enactment.
These changes would afford the spouse of a servicemember
some of the same SCRA land-rights protections that are now
afforded to servicemembers.
Cost Estimate
In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee, based on
information supplied by the Congressional Budget Office
(hereinafter, ``CBO''), estimates that enactment of the
Committee bill would, relative to current law, not have a
significant effect on the Federal budget. It would impose an
intergovernmental mandate that would fall below the annual
threshold established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The cost estimate provided by CBO, setting forth a detailed
breakdown of costs, follows:
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2009.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S.475, the Military
Spouses Residency Relief Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M.
Wright.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure.
S.475, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act
Summary: S.475 would extend to military spouses several
residency-related benefits afforded to servicemembers under the
Servicemember Civil Relief Act (SCRA). CBO estimates that
implementing the bill would not have a significant effect on
the Federal budget.
S.475 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by limiting the
ability of state and local governments to collect income and
property taxes. CBO estimates the total cost of complying with
the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold
established in UMRA ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for
inflation). The bill contains no private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of that act
any legislative provisions that are necessary for enforcing the
constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that
section 2 of this bill falls within that exclusion; we have not
reviewed it for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates.
Basis of estimate: S.475 would extend to military spouses
certain benefits afforded servicemembers under the SCRA.
Sections 2 and 3 would allow military spouses to maintain a
home-of-record for purposes of voting and taxation when they
are absent from their home state to join active-duty spouses at
military duty stations.
Similarly, section 4 would suspend for military spouses the
residency requirements for land rights under laws--such as
mining and mineral leasing laws--relating to federally owned
lands. Under S.475, absence from the land due to a
servicemember's military orders would not require the military
spouse to forfeit those land rights, regardless of their state
of domicile, for a period ending six months after the
servicemember's discharge from active-duty
service.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S.475 contains
an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA. It would
prohibit state and local governments from collecting taxes on
an individual's income or personal property, if that individual
moved to the jurisdiction to accompany his or her spouse at a
military-duty station. It would transfer authority to tax those
individuals to the states in which they were legal residents
before moving to the duty station. The effect on individual
state and local revenue collections would vary depending on the
number and income of these individuals and where they reside or
maintain legal residence. However, CBO estimates the net effect
across states to be small and well below the annual threshold
established in UMRA ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for
inflation).
The bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA.
Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of that act
any legislative provisions that are necessary for enforcing the
constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that
section 2 of this bill falls within that exclusion because it
would protect individual's voting rights; we have not reviewed
it for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Dwayne M. Wright;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Burke Doherty;
Impact on the Private Sector: Elizabeth Bass.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs has made an evaluation of the regulatory impact that
would be incurred in carrying out the Committee bill. The
Committee finds that the Committee bill would not entail any
regulation of individuals or businesses or result in any impact
on the personal privacy of any individuals and that the
paperwork resulting from enactment would be minimal.
Tabulation of Votes Cast in Committee
In compliance with paragraph 7 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the following is a tabulation of votes
cast in person or by proxy by Members of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs at its May 21, 2009, meeting. On that date,
the Committee considered and ordered reported S.475, as
amended, a bill to guarantee the equity of spouses of military
personnel with regard to matters of residency, and for other
purposes. The Committee bill was agreed to by a vote of 14to0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeas Senator Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X (by proxy) Mr. Rockefeller
X Mrs. Murray
X (by proxy) Mr. Sanders
X Mr. Brown
X Mr. Webb
X Mr. Tester
X Mr. Begich
X Mr. Burris
X (by proxy) Mr. Specter
X Mr. Burr
X Mr. Isakson
X (by proxy) Mr. Wicker
X Mr. Johanns
Mr. Graham
X Mr. Akaka, Chairman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 TALLY 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATOR AKAKA
I have been concerned for some time that the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee is not the appropriate committee to
have jurisdiction over the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act
(SCRA). This bill is a perfect example of the reason for my
concern since it, like all of the SCRA, has no relationship to
an individual's rights as a veteran but relates solely to the
rights and protections afforded those who are serving on active
duty.
That overarching issue aside, I have significant concerns
about this legislation.
First, as reported, the legislation addressing the state of
residency for tax purposes would create a disparity in the
treatment between a servicemember and his or her spouse which
would place the spouse in a better position than the
servicemember. As proposed, any income earned by a spouse while
accompanying a servicemember would not be subject to taxation
in the jurisdiction of military service. However, if a
servicemember were to earn additional income, through a
business endeavor or a part-time job, the servicemember's
additional income would be subject to taxation in that
jurisdiction.
Second, I make special note of the informal comments of the
Department of Defense on this measure which were received from
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness). These views, which I am including at the end of my
views, raise issues of limited Federal interest, impact on
employability, and heightened scrutiny of servicemembers'
declared domiciles by the states.
Finally, I note that, according to testimony received by
the Committee at its hearing on April 29, there are legitimate
questions about the constitutionality of the legislation.
Although the Supreme Court ruled in 1953 in Dameron v.
Brodhead, 345 U.S. 322, that SCRA is constitutional under
Congress' authority ``to declare War'' and ``to raise and
support Armies,'' it is not clear that exempting individuals
who are not members of the Armed Forces from taxation in the
jurisdiction in which their spouses are stationed contributes
to those authorities. I have appended to my views an analysis
of the measure from a constitutional perspective that was
prepared in response to a request I made of the Congressional
Research Service of the Library of Congress.
* * * * * * *
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness)
July 2009
INFORMAL COMMENTS
Subject: S.475, ``Military Spouses Residency Relief Act''
(The Act)
Language/Provision: The Act amends several provisions of
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) (50 U.S.C. App.
Sec. Sec. 501, et seq.) to:
a. guarantee residency for spouses of military
personnel for voting purposes;
b. guarantee residency for spouses of military
personnel for tax purposes and to exempt income earned
in the non-domiciliary State from taxation; and
c. extend suspension of homestead residency
requirements to spouses.
DOD POSITIONS/COMMENTS:
a. For the reasons noted in paragraph b, the Department of
Defense (DOD):
(1) does not object to Section 2 of the proposed
bill: ``Guarantee of Residency for Spouses for
Voting'';
(2) strongly objects to Section 3 of the proposed
bill: ``Determination for Tax Purposes of Residence of
Spouses of Military Personnel'' and recommends an
alternate consideration; and
(3) does not object to Section 4 of the proposed
bill.
b. Comments by Section:
(1) Guaranteeof ResidencyforSpousesforVoting
(Section2).
(a) The guarantee of residency for voting in
new section 705(b) of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App.
Sec. 595) would not provide any protections
when the servicemember and spouse are co-
located in the State from which they would be
absent but are not both domiciliaries of that
State. Furthermore, new section 705(b) of the
SCRA would not provide any protections if both
the servicemember and the spouse were
domiciliaries of the same State and left that
same State, but not together (e.g., the
servicemember is assigned unaccompanied to
Korea, and the spouse goes to a different State
to live with a relative).
(b) Even though the above two scenarios are
not uncommon, there may be some practical
benefits to those spouses who are covered under
the proposed amendment and seek to vote in the
domiciliary State. Accordingly, we do not
object to this section of the proposed
amendment.
(2) Guarantee of Residency for Spouses for Taxation
(Section 3). The proposed amendment to section 511 of
the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 571) shields the income
of a spouse (under the stated conditions) from taxation
in the non-domiciliary State where the spouse is
currently located with the servicemember. Although, the
proposed amendment would provide a financial windfall
for military families whose State of domicile would not
tax the income earned in the non-domiciliary State, it
could have significant and detrimental long-term
effects that would offset the arbitrary tax windfall
that some would receive.
(a) This proposed amendment upsets the entire
theory of taxation as it has traditionally
applied to the spouse. In general, a State
imposes tax on the worldwide income of
individuals who are resident or domiciled in
that State. States impose tax on nonresidents
of the State to the extent the nonresident
receives income earned or derived from that
State. The burden on a spouse who is employed
in a tax jurisdiction where the member is
assigned is
the same as that of every other citizen of that
State--no greater or less. Furthermore, the
spouse receives the benefits of services and
employment protections provided by the State.
(b) There is limited Federal interest
involved in ensuring the spouse's income is not
taxed in the non-domiciliary State where it is
earned. There would be, however, great Federal
interest in ensuring that the spouse's income
is not taxed in both the domiciliary State and
the non-domiciliary State where earned, but we
are not aware that this is happening or that
this bill is in any way intended to address
that possibility. Rather, the purpose of this
bill appears to be to encourage military
members and their spouses to seek assignments
to one of the seven States that do not have a
personal income tax and to become a domiciliary
of that State. For those not so fortunate, the
spouses could find themselves paying more State
taxes when moving from a domiciliary State with
higher income taxes to a non-domiciliary State
with lower income taxes.
(c) The inherent unfairness and arbitrary
nature of this scheme compounds the States'
legitimate concerns if prohibited from taxing
compensation earned within their borders by
those who live there and use its resources and
services. Some might question why DOD would
care about this proposal's effect on any
particular State. The Department is and should
always be concerned when the proper and fair
balancing of interests under the SCRA becomes
too far skewed in favor of the servicemember.
Such imbalance could lead to a backlash of ill
will from the State.
(i) For example, approximately 24
States currently do not pay spouses
unemployment benefits when they are
forced to relocate under military
orders with their military member
spouse. For some time, DOD has urged
those 24 States to reconsider their
position and extend unemployment
benefits to such spouses. The proposed
legislation would provide a compelling
disincentive for the remaining 24
States to adopt a more favorable
practice.
(ii) In addition, this proposal could
undercut employment opportunities for
spouses who seek employment with State
governments. States could choose to
hire someone who will be part of the
tax base instead of the spouse.
Although there are anti-discrimination
provisions in the SCRA, such
discrimination would be difficult to
prove.
(iii) Also, the loss of revenue for
the States could cause them to
challenge assertions of domicile for
the spouse and then for the
servicemember as well. Proving domicile
can be complicated and time consuming.
It may well prove impossible if the
servicemember and spouse have not
established the appropriate contacts to
prove their intent with respect to
domicile. The unintended consequences
of increased scrutiny of the spouse's
assertion of domicile, and the likely
scrutiny of the servicemember's own
domicile as well, could well lead to
the collection of back taxes that would
offset any benefits this provision
might provide.
(d) This proposal would actually provide
greater tax protection for the spouse than for
the servicemember (assuming the tax rate in the
non-domiciliary State is less than the rate in
the domiciliary State). It would shield all
income by the spouse (at least in the non-
domiciliary State) under the noted conditions.
Conversely, only military compensation for the
servicemember is shielded. Thus, the
servicemember who moonlighted on the weekend
would pay State taxes on that income to the
non-domiciliary State, but the spouse would pay
none for any work performed in the non-
domiciliary State, and, depending on the law of
the domiciliary State, may not pay any taxes at
all.
(e) If in spite of our objections, Congress
believes that this provision should become law,
we recommend that a provision be added that
would eliminate the requirement for an employer
in the non-domiciliary State to withhold State
income taxes from the spouse on behalf of the
domiciliary State for services performed in the
non-domiciliary State. This would result in an
additional administrative burden on the
employer solely because the employer hired a
spouse of a military member. We are concerned
that such an administrative burden could
provide another disincentive for the non-
domiciliary State to hire the spouse.
(f) The proposed amendment to current section
511(c)(1) of the SCRA would relieve the spouse
from personal property tax in the non-
domiciliary State to the same extent that the
Servicemember would be relieved. We support
this initiative but recommend that it be
accomplished by amending current section
511(f)(1) of the SCRA to redefine personal
property to include property owned jointly by a
servicemember and his or her dependent or
dependents.
(i) We are concerned that the
requirement in proposed section
511(a)(2) of the SCRA that the spouse
be present in the non-domiciliary State
(``to be with the servicemember'')
could qualify the proposed language in
current section 511(c)(1) and (2) so
that the benefits of the section would
not apply when the servicemember is
present in a non-domiciliary State
without the spouse--as is frequently
the case with mobilized reservists--and
the property is held jointly.
(ii) Our proposed amendment to
current section 511(f)(1) (as opposed
to the proposed amendment to current
section 511(c) (1) and (2)) would avoid
all the difficulties we have voiced
above and also extend protections to
property held not simply with the
spouse but with dependents as well.
(3) Suspension of Land Rights Residency
Requirement for Spouses of Military Personnel
(Section 4). The proposed amendment to section
508 (b) of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 568)
extends the suspension of residency requirement
for the establishment of a property right to
spouses. Section 508 deals with land rights of
Servicemembers who may have an interest in
mining claims or homesteading public lands. We
have no objections to the proposed amendment to
section 508(b).
* * * * * * *
Library of Congress,
Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, May 26, 2009.
Ms. Babette Polzer,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Constitutional Analysis of S.475, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., the
``Military Spouses Residency Relief Act''
This memorandum is in response to your request to evaluate
the constitutionality of S.475, the ``Military Spouses
Residency Relief Act.'' The bill, if enacted, would extend
certain protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(SCRA)\1\ to the spouses of servicemembers. S.475 would amend
three sections of the SCRA: (1) 50 U.S.C. Sec. 568, Land rights
of servicemembers; (2) 50 U.S.C. Sec. 571, Residence for tax
purposes; and (3) 50 U.S.C. Sec. 595, Guarantee of residency
for military personnel. Arguably, the proposed amendments could
reduce burdens on military families related to residency and
taxation issues that often arise as a result of frequent duty
station transfers. However, to the extent that the bill, as
drafted, confers certain benefits on a servicemember's spouse
that are independent from those of the servicemember, its
constitutionality may raise a question of first impression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\50 U.S.C. app. Sec. Sec. 501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCRA was enacted on December 19, 2003, as a
modernization and restatement of protections and rights
previously available to servicemembers.\2\ The purpose of the
Act is to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national
defense by protecting servicemembers, enabling them to ``devote
their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.''\3\
The SCRA generally protects servicemembers by temporarily
suspending certain judicial and administrative proceedings and
transactions that may adversely affect their legal rights
during military service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Congress has long recognized the need for protective legislation
for servicemembers whose service to the Nation compromises their
ability to meet obligations and protect their legal interests. During
the Civil War an absolute moratorium on civil actions brought against
soldiers and sailors was enacted (Act of June 11, 1864, ch. 118, 13
Stat. 123). During World War I, Congress enacted the Soldiers' and
Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 440 (1918); followed by the
Soldiers' and Sailors' Act of 1940 (Act of October 17, 1940, ch. 888,
54 Stat. 1178) during World War II.
\3\50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed changes to the SCRA
50 U.S.C. Sec. 568 provides various land right protections
for servicemembers, including rights in public lands, desert
lands, mining claims, and mineral permits and leases. Under
these protections, servicemembers may maintain rights to access
and use public lands and to enter desert lands obtained before
entering military service. The servicemember may also retain
mining claims and mineral permits and leases in the event of
nonperformance of the requirements of the lease while on active
duty. Generally, an individual must be at least 21 years old in
order to exercise such land rights; however the Act creates an
exception to the age requirement and allows all servicemembers,
regardless of age, to exercise rights related to lands owned or
controlled by the United States. Additionally, residency
requirements for purposes of exercising the land rights, are
suspended for six months after release from military service.
As enacted, the Act does not provide the same protections and
rights to a servicemember's spouse or dependents. Under S.475,
the spouse of a servicemember would be entitled to the same
suspension of residency requirements for a period of 6 months
after the servicemember is released from military service.
50 U.S.C. Sec. 571 prevents multiple state taxation on the
property and income of military personnel serving within
various tax jurisdictions\4\ by reason of military service. The
Act provides that ``[a] servicemember shall neither lose nor
acquire a residence or domicile for purposes of taxation with
respect to the person, personal property, or income of the
servicemember by reason of being absent or present in any tax
jurisdiction of the United States solely in compliance with
military orders.'' The duty station tax jurisdiction may not
include military compensation earned by a nonresident
servicemember to compute its state income tax liability. The
duty station jurisdiction may tax non-military income earned by
the servicemember and/or the spouse. Additionally, personal
property of a servicemember is not be subject to taxation by a
jurisdiction other than his or her domicile or residence while
serving at a duty station outside of his or her home state.
S.475 would expand the language concerning residency for tax
purposes to include the spouse of a servicemember. Under the
proposed language, the spouse would neither lose nor acquire a
state of domicile or residence for taxation purposes when he or
she accompanies the servicemember to a duty station outside the
home state in compliance with military orders. Income earned
by, and personal property of, the spouse, while in a
jurisdiction pursuant to the military orders, would not be
subject to taxation by that jurisdiction. Rather, the income
and property of the spouse would be subject to taxation only by
his or her home state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\``Tax jurisdiction'' is defined to include ``a State or a
political subdivision of a State,'' which would include the District of
Columbia and any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United
States (Sec. 101(6)). ``Taxation'' includes licenses, fees, or excises
imposed on an automobile that is also subject to licensing, fees or
excise in the servicemember's state of residence. ``Personal property''
includes intangible and tangible property including motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 U.S.C. Sec. 595 provides that military personnel are not
deemed to have changed their state residence or domicile for
the purpose of voting for any Federal, state, or local office,
solely because of their absence from the respective state in
compliance with military or naval orders. S.475 would expand
the provision to apply to the spouse of a servicemember,
therefore guaranteeing that his or her state residence or
domicile for the purpose of voting for any Federal, state, or
local office, would not change solely because of an absence
from the respective state while accompanying a spouse to a duty
station in compliance with military orders.
Constitutional Analysis
The question at issue is whether the proposed amendment
could precipitate a conflict between congressional power to
regulate the military pursuant to its constitutional War Powers
and the reserved right of the states to tax. The powers of the
Federal Government, while limited to those enumerated in the
Constitution,\5\ have been interpreted broadly, so as to create
a large potential overlap with state authority.\6\ Significant
powers exercised by Congress are the War Powers,\7\ which
include the power to raise and support an army. The scope of
the congressional and executive authority to prescribe the
rules for the governance of the military is broad and subject
to great deference by the judiciary.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Article I, Sec. 1, of the Constitution provides that ``All
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States * * *.'' Unlike a typical grant of power to states,
Article I, Sec. 1, does not grant to Congress ``all legislative
power,'' but rather grants to Congress only those specific powers
enumerated in Sec. 8 and elsewhere in the Constitution.
\6\For instance, Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 18 provides that ``[t]he
Congress will have power * * *. To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.'' Early in
the history of the Constitution, the Supreme Court found that this
clause enlarges rather than narrows the powers of Congress. As stated
by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.)
316 (1819): ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of
the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are
plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent
with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''
\7\U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11-14 provide that: The
Congress shall have power * * *. To declare War, grant Letters of
Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water[;] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years[;] To provide and
maintain a Navy[;] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces.
\8\Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S.57, 64-68 (1981); Brown v. Glines,
444 U.S.348, 353-58 (1980); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S.738,
746-48 (1975); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S.828, 837-38 (1976). See Johnny
Killian, Kenneth Thomas, & George Costello, United States Constitution:
Analysis And Interpretation 332 (2002 ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although such issues have rarely come before the U.S.
Supreme Court, it has considered the structure and balance of
the SCRA in circumscribing state law in order to promote the
interests of the military as an entity, and servicemembers in
their individual capacity. In Dameron v. Brodhead,\9\ the Court
addressed the question of the power of the Federal Government
to limit a state's right to tax property within its
jurisdiction. The case involved a challenge to the provision in
the Act prohibiting state taxation on the property and income
of military personnel serving within a tax jurisdiction in
compliance with military orders.\10\ Dameron, a commissioned
officer in the U.S. Air Force, sued Brodhead, in his capacity
as a city and county official of Denver, Colorado, for the
recovery of $23.51 in taxes on his personal property assessed
while Dameron was stationed in Colorado. Dameron argued that
his domicile was Louisiana and that pursuant to the SCRA he was
exempt from assessment by a tax jurisdiction other than his
domicile. Brodhead asserted that the language of the Act did
not prevent Colorado from taxing the servicemember's personal
property because the law's purpose was to prevent multiple
taxation of military personnel, and since Louisiana had not
taxed Dameron's personal property, Colorado could. If the SCRA
did prevent the tax in question, Dameron contended that it was
unconstitutional. With respect to the constitutional question,
the Court stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Dameron v. Brodhead, 345 U.S.322 (1953) (The case questioned a
provision in the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act, but for ease
of discussion this memorandum will refer to the SCRA and its
predecessor as the ``Act'').
\10\The challenged section being Sec. 514 of the SSCRA (50 U.S.C.
App. Sec. 574), restated and codified as Sec. 571 of the SCRA (50
U.S.C. Sec. 571).
[t]he constitutionality of Federal legislation
exempting servicemen from the substantial burdens of
seriate taxation by the states in which they may be
required to be present by virtue of their service,
cannot be doubted. Generally similar relief has often
been accorded other types of Federal operations or
functions. And we have upheld the validity of such
enactments, even when they reach beyond the activities
of Federal agencies and corporations to private parties
who have seen fit to contract to carry on functions of
the Federal Government.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Brodhead at 324-325 (Citing Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., 342
U.S.232 (holding that contractors with the Atomic Energy Commission
were exempt from state sales and use tax by section 9(b) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1946)).
The Court held that servicemembers' ``duties are directly
related to an activity which the Constitution delegated to the
National Government * * * `to declare war' and `to raise and
support Armies.'''\12\ The Court further held that
``congressional exercise of a `necessary and proper'
supplementary power such as this statute must be upheld.''\13\
In effect, SCRA preempts state laws which would tax the
service-related income or personal property of servicemembers
at their duty station when it is not their domicile. The Court
concluded the constitutional discussion by stating, ``[w]hat
has been said in no way affects the reserved powers of the
states to tax. For this statute merely states that the taxable
domicile of servicemen shall not be changed by military
assignments. This we think is within the Federal power.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id. at 325 (internal citations omitted).
\13\Id.
\14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the dissent in Dameron emphasized states'
right to tax over Congress' War Powers authority, stating
``[t]he power to tax is basic to the sovereignty of the
states.''\15\ Acknowledging that limits exist on congressional
restrictions on states' right to tax, the dissent looked to
those instances where a Federal instrumentality, or the means
by which an instrumentality performs its functions, are immune
from state tax as being most similar to the prohibition under
the Act.\16\ It noted a previous holding in Graves v. New
York\17\ that wages of Federal employees, which include
servicemembers, could be taxed on a nondiscriminatory basis by
the states.\18\ The dissent further argued that a servicemember
``receives protection and benefits from the society which the
states create and maintain * * *. If he gets tax immunity, it
means that other citizens must pay his share.''\19\ It
concluded with the assertion that ``[w]hen Congress undertakes
to protect [servicemembers] from state taxation or regulation,
it is not acting to protect either a Federal instrumentality or
any function which a Federal agency performs. Congress,
therefore, acts without constitutional authority.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id. at 327 (Citing Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5).
\16\Id.
\17\New York v. Graves, 306 U.S.466 (1939).
\18\Brodhead at 328 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
\19\Id. at 328-329.
\20\Id. at 329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A solid majority (seven of the nine Justices) concurred in
the majority opinion in Dameron, with much of the discussion
focused on the servicemember's relationship to the Federal
Government. The Court reasoned that servicemember's ``duties''
are directly related to an activity (to raise and support an
army) delegated to Congress, and, as such, within Congress'
authority to regulate. The full extent of Congress' authority
to extend limitations on the reach of state law with regard to
individuals, based exclusively on a spousal relationship with a
servicemember, is less clear. Previously Congress expanded
certain protections of the Act to include spouses and/or
dependents of servicemembers (e.g., maximum interest rate on
debts\21\), but generally these protections require the
existence of a joint obligation before the Act may be invoked.
The Act does allow for a spouse and/or dependent of a
servicemember to petition a court for certain protections under
the SCRA, but the court may only extend the protections if it
finds that the ability to comply with the terms of a covered
contract are materially impaired by the military service of the
person upon whom he or she is dependent.\22\ If enacted, S.475
would provide individual protections to the spouse of a
servicemember with respect to residency for land rights, taxes
and voting purposes. The common requirement of the expanded
protections is that the spouse must accompany the servicemember
on military orders away from his or her domicile. However, it
appears that the proposed amendments create an inconsistency in
taxation of servicemembers and their spouses. Currently, any
income earned by a spouse and any non-military income earned by
the servicemember may be taxed by the duty station tax
jurisdiction. Under the proposed amendments, the spouse would
not be subject to tax at the duty station, but non-military
income earned by the servicemember would still be subject to
taxation
by the duty station tax jurisdiction. Arguably, the spouse of a
servicemember would enjoy greater protections, i.e., immunity
from duty station income tax, under the SCRA than would the
servicemember.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 527.
\22\50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 518.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal regulation of state residency requirements may in
itself be unusual, but there does not appear to be a
significant question as to whether Congress' War Powers are
sufficient to support such a regulation. The interest of the
Armed Forces in family cohesion and troop morale may be
sufficient justification for a legal requirement allowing
servicemembers and their dependants to maintain the same
domicile regardless of where they are stationed. It could be
argued that this requirement would serve the broader interests
of the Federal Government in raising and maintaining its troops
and therefore be within Congress' constitutional authority. In
Boone v. Lightner, the U.S. Supreme Court, while addressing the
level of discretion afforded courts under the SCRA, stated that
``[t]he [Act] is always to be liberally construed to protect
those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take
up the burdens of the Nation.''\23\ The stated purpose of the
Act is ``to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national
defense'' by minimizing burdens on servicemembers, enabling
them to ``devote their entire energy to the defense needs of
the Nation.''\24\ It may be plausibly argued that simplifying
residence requirements to include spouses, presumably
individuals who organize their affairs to accompany
servicemembers to their duty station, allows servicemembers to
``devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the
Nation.''\25\ The degree to which permitting military families
to limit income tax payable on non-military income earned in
the duty station jurisdiction achieves comparable goals,
without imposing undue limitations on the duty-station state,
is not settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S.561, 575 (1943).
\24\50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 502.
\25\In a similar manner, Congress has acted to prohibit states and/
or local jurisdictions from assessing a personal property tax on a
motor vehicle owned by a Member of Congress (or by his or her spouse)
while maintaining a place of abode for purposes of attending sessions
of Congress (H.R. 3067, Sec. 3067, incorporated into Act of December
19, 1985, Public Law 99-190, Sec. 101(c), 99 Stat. 1224 by Act of
December 22, 1987, Public Law 100-202, Sec. 106, 101 Stat. 1329).
R. Chuck Mason,
Legislative Attorney.
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATOR BURR
On February 25, 2009, I introduced S.475, the Military
Spouses Residency Relief Act, along with Senator Feinstein, in
order to provide military spouses with residency protections
similar to those afforded to military personnel under the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (hereinafter, ``SCRA''). Since
then, 41 Senators have been added as cosponsors and the bill
has been endorsed by a long list of organizations, including
the Air Force Association, the Military Officers Association of
America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and
AMVETS. I am pleased that the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs (hereinafter, ``Committee'') also demonstrated its
support for this bill by voting to favorably report it to the
full Senate. Although the Committee report explains the
Committee's rationale for that decision, I am including these
supplemental views to explain the reasons why I personally
believe this bill is the right thing to do.
The law this bill amends, the SCRA, is the most recent in a
series of laws passed during the past two centuries to afford
civil protections to the men and women who serve in our
Nation's Armed Forces. In part, the SCRA allows a servicemember
to maintain residency in a single state, for purposes of voting
and paying taxes, as he or she is moved around the country by
the military. See 50 U.S.C. App. 571, 595. These and other
protections in the SCRA are one way a grateful nation accounts
for the fact that military personnel ``drop their own affairs
to take up the burdens of the Nation.'' Boone v. Lightner, 319
U.S.561, 575 (1943).
But, today, the burdens of the Nation are not borne by
servicemembers alone; they are shared by the military spouses
who move around the country and the world in support of our
Nation's all-volunteer force. These spouses leave behind their
homes, friends, and jobs in order to put servicemembers and the
military ahead of their own needs. Indeed, studies by the RAND
Corporation have found that military wives move farther and
more often than their civilian counterparts; are more likely to
be unemployed than the average civilian spouse; and, even if
they do find work, tend to earn less than civilian wives. See
``Working Around the Military: Challenges to Military Spouse
Employment and Education,'' at 18, 48 (2004); ``Working Around
the Military'' Revisited, at 1, 3 (2007).
In addition to making great personal sacrifices to support
the military, it is now widely recognized that military spouses
play an important role in the success of our Armed Forces. In
fact, Military Spouse Day was first proclaimed by President
Ronald Reagan 25 years ago to acknowledge ``the profound
importance of spouse commitment to the readiness and well-being
of servicemembers * * * and to the security of our Nation.''
Proclamation 5184 (April 17, 1984). More recently, the RAND
Corporation stressed in its 2004 study that ``[s]uccessful
recruiting and retention of the active duty force relies in
large part on the extent to which servicemembers and their
spouses experience both job satisfaction and contentment with
life in the military.'' ``Working Around the Military:
Challenges to Military Spouse Employment and Education,'' at
xvii.
These sentiments clearly are shared by senior Army leaders
who recently signed the Army Family Covenant, in which they
``recognize the commitment and increasing sacrifices that our
families are making every day'' and ``recognize the strength of
our Soldiers comes from the strength of their Families.'' As
Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said in signing the covenant,
``[t]he readiness of our all-volunteer force depends on the
health of the Families.'' http://www.military.com/features/
0,15240,153120,00.html (last visited June 9, 2009). In short,
servicemembers and their families are a package deal--if you
lose the family, you will lose the servicemember.
Unfortunately, the SCRA has not yet been updated to
recognize the role of military spouses or to ease their burdens
as they move to new duty stations with their servicemember-
spouses. For example, under the SCRA, if a servicemember moves
to a new state in compliance with military orders, the
servicemember may continue to vote in the state he or she
considers home; the servicemember's military pay may be taxed
only in that home state; and any personal property the
servicemember brings to the new state will not be subjected to
taxation in that state. See 50 U.S.C. App. 571, 595. However,
if a servicemember's spouse leaves the same state and travels
to a new state with that servicemember, the spouse is not
afforded similar protections. The spouse may have to register
to vote and file tax returns in every state in which they live.
Also, in some states, the family assets must be held solely in
the servicemember's name in order to protect them from being
taxed by those states.
In addition to the hassles this may cause for military
families, as they move to a new state every few years, this
sends the wrong message to military spouses. As the National
Military Family Association testified back in 1992, ``the
current situation has left many military spouses feeling they
are perceived as excess baggage.'' H. Hrg. 102-35, at 3, House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, April 29, 1992. Similarly, the
Committee recently heard from a military spouse who provided
this assessment: ``As a military spouse I feel like I am forced
into unnecessary hardships that could be easily rectified.''
Attachment to testimony of Mrs. Rebecca Poynter, at 4, Hearing
on Pending Benefits Legislation, Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, April 29, 2009.
In my view, this situation should not be allowed to
continue. It is time for Congress to update the law to reflect
the true role of military spouses and to alleviate these
unnecessary hardships. I believe this bill would take a
significant step in that direction, by allowing military
spouses to vote and pay taxes in their home states. This should
reduce some of the hassles and confusion of moving every time
the servicemember is ordered to a new duty station and will
allow military spouses the flexibility to hold property in
their own names. Perhaps more importantly, it will send a clear
message to military spouses that we, as a Nation, appreciate
their sacrifices and are grateful for the contributions they
make every day to the success of our Armed Forces.
* * * * * * *
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the Committee bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing
law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman).
TITLE 50. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
TITLE 50 APPENDIX--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as
the``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--FURTHER RELIEF
SEC. 701. ANTICIPATORY RELIEF.
SEC. 702. POWER OF ATTORNEY.
SEC. 703. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY PROTECTION.
SEC. 704. HEALTH INSURANCE REINSTATEMENT.
[SEC. 705. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL.]
SEC. 705. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL AND SPOUSES OF
MILITARY PERSONNEL.
SEC. 706. BUSINESS OR TRADE OBLIGATIONS.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--TAXES AND PUBLIC LANDS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 508. LAND RIGHTS OF SERVICEMEMBERS.
(a) * * *
(b) Residency Requirement.--Any requirement related to the
establishment of a residence within a limited time shall be
suspended as to entry by a servicemember in military service or
the spouse of such servicemember until 180 days after
termination of or release from military service.
(c) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 511. RESIDENCE FOR TAX PURPOSES.
(a) Residence or Domicile.--[A servicemember] (1) In
General._A servicemember shall neither lose nor acquire a
residence or domicile for purposes of taxation with respect to
the person, personal property, or income of the servicemember
by reason of being absent or present in any tax jurisdiction of
the United States solely in compliance with military orders.
(2) Spouses.--A spouse of a servicemember shall neither
lose nor acquire a residence or domicile for purposes of
taxation with respect to the person, personal property, or
income of the spouse by reason of being absent or present in
any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely to be with the
servicemember in compliance with the servicemember's military
orders if the residence or domicile, as the case may be, is the
same for the servicemember and the spouse.
(b) Military Service Compensation.--Compensation of a
servicemember for military service shall not be deemed to be
income for services performed or from sources within a tax
jurisdiction of the United States if the servicemember is not a
resident or domiciliary of the jurisdiction in which the
servicemember is serving in compliance with military orders.
(c) Income of a Military Spouse.--Income for services
performed by the spouse of a servicemember shall not be deemed
to be income for services performed or from sources within a
tax jurisdiction of the United States if the spouse is not a
resident or domiciliary of the jurisdiction in which the income
is earned because the spouse is in the jurisdiction solely to
be with the servicemember serving in compliance with military
orders.
[(c)] (d) Personal Property.--
(1) Relief from personal property taxes.--The
personal property of a servicemember or the spouse of a
servicemember shall not be deemed to be located or
present in, or to have a situs for taxation in, the tax
jurisdiction in which the servicemember is serving in
compliance with military orders.
(2) Exception for property within member's domicile
or residence.--This subsection applies to personal
property or its use within any tax jurisdiction other
than the servicemember's or the spouse's domicile or
residence.
(3) Exception for property used in trade or
business.--This section does not prevent taxation by a
tax jurisdiction with respect to personal property used
in or arising from a trade or business, if it has
jurisdiction.
(4) Relationship to law of state of domicile.--
Eligibility for relief from personal property taxes
under this subsection is not contingent on whether or
not such taxes are paid to the State of domicile.
[(d)] (e) Increase of Tax Liability.--A tax jurisdiction
may not use the military compensation of a nonresident
servicemember to increase the tax liability imposed on other
income earned by the nonresident servicemember or spouse
subject to tax by the jurisdiction.
[(e)] (f) Federal Indian Reservations.--An Indian
servicemember whose legal residence or domicile is a Federal
Indian reservation shall be taxed by the laws applicable to
Federal Indian reservations and not the State where the
reservation is located.
[(f)] (g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Personal property.--The term ``personal
property'' means intangible and tangible property
(including motor vehicles).
(2) Taxation.--The term ``taxation'' includes
licenses, fees, or excises imposed with respect to
motor vehicles and their use, if the license, fee, or
excise is paid by the servicemember in the
servicemember's State of domicile or residence.
(3) Tax jurisdiction.--The term ``tax jurisdiction''
means a State or a political subdivision of a State.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--FURTHER RELIEF
SEC. 701. * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 705. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL AND SPOUSES OF
MILITARY PERSONNEL.
[For] (a) In General._For the purposes of voting for any
Federal office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or
local office, a person who is absent from a State in compliance
with military or naval orders shall not, solely by reason of
that absence--
(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in
that State, without regard to whether or not the person
intends to return to that State;
(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or
domicile in any other State; or
(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a
resident of any other State.
(b) Spouses.--For the purposes of voting for any Federal
office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local
office, a person who is absent from a State because the person
is accompanying the person's spouse who is absent from that
same State in compliance with military or naval orders shall
not, solely by reason of that absence--
(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in
that State, without regard to whether or not the person
intends to return to that State;
(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or
domicile in any other State; or
(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a
resident of any other State.