Perkins, 110314 CTAGO, AGO 2014-7

• Case Date: November 03, 2014
• Court: Connecticut

Joseph T. Perkins AGO 2014-7 No. 2014-007 Connecticut Attorney General Opinions Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut November 3, 2014          Joseph T. Perkins          Acting Commissioner          287 West Street          Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067          Dear Commissioner Perkins:          You have asked for this office's opinion as to whether Connecticut General Statutes § 12-81(20) requires an applicant to have served in the armed services during wartime in order to qualify for the property tax exemption created by that subsection. I conclude that § 12-81(20) does not require an applicant to have served in time of war because the text of § 12-81(20) states no such requirement.          Connecticut General Statutes § 12-81(20) states in relevant part:

Subject to the provisions hereinafter stated, property not exceeding three thousand dollars in amount shall be exempt from taxation, which property belongs to, or is held in trust for, any resident of this state who has served, or is serving, in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard or Air Force of the United States and (1) has a disability rating by the Veterans' Administration of the United States amounting to ten per cent or more of total disability, provided such exemption shall be fifteen hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is between ten per cent and twenty-five per cent; two thousand dollars in any case in which such rating is more than twenty-five per cent but not more than fifty per cent; twenty-five hundred dollars in any case in which such rating is more than fifty per cent but not more than seventy-five per cent; and three thousand dollars in any case in which such person has attained sixty-five years of age or such rating is more than seventy-five per cent; or (2) is receiving a pension, annuity or compensation from the United States because of the loss in service of a leg or ami or that which is considered by the rules of the United States Pension Office or the Bureau of War Risk Insurance the equivalent of such loss.

         "Our inquiry in any issue of statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute at issue." Town of Branford v. Santa Barbara, 294 Conn. 803, 810 (2010). "When a statute's plain and unambiguous language indicates that the statute is intended to have ... [a broad] application, we will not supply an exception or limitation to that statute." Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment Co., 298 Conn. 620...