Imposes a non-owner occupied property tax on residential properties assessed in excess of eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) at variable rates dependent on values assessed by local tax assessors.
H6189 creates a new chapter in Rhode Island tax law called the Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act. It would impose a statewide tax on residential property that is not occupied by the owner for a majority of the year, including seasonal or vacation homes, when the property is assessed at $800,000 or more. The tax would apply beginning July 1, 2025, with the act itself taking effect January 1, 2026.
The bill sets a tiered tax rate based on assessed value: 0.4% for properties valued from $800,000 to under $1 million, 0.5% for properties valued from $1 million to under $2 million, and 0.6% for properties valued above $2 million. It also establishes filing, payment, refund, appeal, recordkeeping, penalty, and collection procedures administered by the tax administrator in the Department of Revenue. The tax would be in addition to other taxes already authorized under state law.
The bill’s stated purpose is to protect municipal tax bases, encourage productive use of high-value residential property, and require non-owner occupied owners to contribute a fair share toward public services such as police and fire protection. It also gives the tax administrator authority to reject claimed exemptions if the administrator determines they are not applicable, and it allows the state to set off delinquent amounts against payments otherwise due to the taxpayer from state agencies.
Because the bill would create a new statewide tax on a specific category of residential property, it would directly affect owners of high-value second homes, investment properties, and vacant residences, as well as local assessors and the Department of Revenue. It would also interact with existing property tax exemptions and appeal procedures, while adding new compliance obligations for affected taxpayers.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears policy-driven and targeted at speculative or underused high-value housing, but it also includes strong enforcement provisions that could prompt concern from property owners and tax practitioners about administration, exemption disputes, and the breadth of the tax.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 44 of the Rhode Island General Laws establishing a statewide excise-style tax on non-owner occupied residential property assessed at $800,000 or more. It would create new definitions, tax rates, filing deadlines, refund and appeal rights, recordkeeping requirements, and collection tools administered by the tax administrator, while leaving existing property tax laws in place and making the new tax cumulative with other taxes. The act would take effect January 1, 2026, with the tax first applying to the privilege year beginning July 1, 2025.
No committee testimony or vote record is included, so there is no documented public sentiment from legislative discussion. From the bill’s findings and structure, the measure is framed as a housing and tax-base protection policy aimed at high-value non-owner occupied properties, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned about municipal revenue and property speculation. At the same time, the bill’s broad enforcement and exemption-review provisions suggest it could draw skepticism from owners of second homes, investors, and tax administrators concerned about implementation.
The main points of contention are likely to be whether the state should impose an additional tax on non-owner occupied homes, whether the $800,000 threshold and tiered rates are appropriate, and whether seasonal or vacation homes should be treated the same as investment properties. Another likely dispute is administrative discretion: the bill allows the tax administrator to reject claimed exemptions if deemed inapplicable and requires extensive records to prove occupancy, which could be viewed as burdensome or overly broad. Property owners and real estate interests may argue the tax penalizes legitimate ownership uses, while supporters are likely to emphasize fairness, municipal revenue, and discouraging vacancy or speculation.