HB 906 would extend and modify Montana’s existing property tax rebate program for principal residences. The bill updates the statutory definitions and claim rules to allow a rebate for tax year 2024, with a maximum rebate of up to $330 for a qualifying principal residence that was occupied by the taxpayer. It also revises the prior rebate framework for tax years 2022 and 2023, including updating dates, claim windows, and administrative references so the Department of Revenue can continue processing rebates under the program.
The bill keeps the rebate limited to taxpayers who owned and lived in a single principal residence for at least seven months of the year, with special rules for taxpayers who changed principal residences during the year, deceased taxpayers, and grantor revocable trusts. It preserves the requirement that claims be filed electronically or by mail, allows the state to offset rebates against certain debts owed to the state, and continues the statutory appropriation for rebate payments and administration. It also amends the long-range building program account so interest earnings for fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, are used for property tax rebates.
In practical terms, HB 906 would affect homeowners who paid property taxes on their primary home in 2024, as well as the Department of Revenue, which would be responsible for notices, claim processing, and payments. It would also amend several sections of the Montana Code Annotated and extend the termination date of the 2023 rebate law from June 30, 2025 to June 30, 2026, ensuring the rebate program remains available for the additional tax year covered by the bill.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears strongly supportive, at least at the committee stage: the House Taxation committee voted 21-0 to table the bill, indicating unanimous agreement in that action. However, the bill ultimately died in process, so despite apparent support in committee, it did not advance to enactment. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor discussion to show broader debate or public testimony.
The main point of contention appears to be fiscal and programmatic rather than ideological: the bill uses state funds and interest earnings to finance rebates, and it adjusts an existing rebate structure rather than creating a new one. The absence of recorded debate makes it difficult to identify specific objections, but the bill’s reliance on a statutory appropriation, its use of general fund and account interest earnings, and its extension of an existing tax expenditure are the likely areas where lawmakers could have differed.
HB 906 would amend Title 15, chapter 1, part 23 of the Montana Code Annotated to extend the principal-residence property tax rebate program to tax year 2024, revise rebate amounts and eligibility language, and update filing and administration provisions. It would also amend the statutory appropriation language in 17-7-209 and extend the sunset date in the 2023 rebate law, while directing fiscal-year-2025 interest earnings from the capital developments long-range building program account toward property tax rebates. The bill would primarily affect homeowners claiming a principal-residence rebate and the Department of Revenue administering the program.
The available voting record suggests the bill was viewed favorably in at least one committee setting, with a unanimous 21-0 vote on a motion to table in the House Taxation committee. There is no transcript available to show detailed debate, but the bill’s subject matter—property tax relief for owner-occupied homes—typically indicates a broadly popular policy goal. Despite that, the bill died in process, suggesting it did not secure enough momentum to advance through the full legislative process.
The likely areas of contention are the cost of the rebate, the use of state funds and interest earnings to finance it, and the policy choice to extend an existing rebate program rather than allow it to expire. The bill also narrows eligibility to principal residences and imposes filing and documentation requirements, which could raise administrative or fairness concerns for some lawmakers. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments for or against the bill are not recorded, but the fiscal impact and the use of dedicated account interest are the most plausible points of disagreement.