relative to the taxation of non-primary residences.
Summary
HB 1580 creates a new annual property tax surcharge on residential properties that are not the owner’s principal place of abode, which the bill defines as a residence occupied by the owner for at least 183 days per year and used for voter registration, driver’s license, or tax filing purposes. The surcharge is set at 0.75% of assessed market value and applies to non-primary residences, including single-family homes, condominiums, and mobile homes, with the assessed value threshold and occupancy criteria used to identify covered properties.
The bill includes several exemptions. It does not apply to primary residences, long-term rentals leased for six or more consecutive months to the same tenant, properties assessed below $500,000, or properties already qualifying for certain existing property tax exemptions. Owners would have to certify occupancy status annually, and the Department of Revenue Administration would be directed to create rules and forms, while municipalities would maintain a registry of non-primary residences and report surcharge revenue. The bill also imposes an additional penalty for willful misclassification and allows appeals to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals.
Impact
HB 1580 would amend RSA 72 by adding a new section authorizing a non-primary residence surcharge and creating new administrative duties for the Department of Revenue Administration, municipal assessing officials, and property owners. It would likely increase local property tax revenue in municipalities with qualifying properties, while also requiring new certification, registry, rulemaking, and appeals processes. The bill directs surcharge revenue to the municipality where the property is located for specified local uses such as property tax relief, schools, infrastructure, conservation, and other community services.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generated significant opposition in the House, as reflected by the 283-55 vote to ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on February 12, 2026. The fiscal materials suggest the concept was viewed as potentially revenue-generating for municipalities, but also administratively complex and difficult to estimate because the number of qualifying properties is unknown. Overall, the vote indicates the chamber’s sentiment was largely unfavorable despite some support for the policy idea.
Contention
The main points of contention are the policy choice to tax non-primary residences, the fairness of exempting or targeting certain property owners, and the administrative burden of identifying and verifying occupancy status. The Department of Revenue Administration flagged ambiguity in the penalty provision and noted implementation timing concerns, while municipalities and the New Hampshire Municipal Association acknowledged potential revenue gains but also uncertainty about the number of affected homes and the costs of administration. Property owners likely to be affected include second-home owners, while long-term landlords and owners of lower-valued or exempt properties are excluded.
Relative to the general court's authority over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, and other matter pertaining to firearms, stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray devices, knives and other self-defense tools.