Requirements for circuit breaker are discriminatory
Circuit breaker tax credit applications are denied by the real property tax collections section of the Treasury Division of the Department of Finance if the property “is not the only property owned by any of the titleholders on Maui, in Hawaii, in another state or territory, or in a foreign country.”
My second property is a condominium unit presently rented on a long-term basis that I will occupy upon such time as I become unable to manage the house that is presently my principle residence, and the object of the denial.
It appears the statutory requirements single out for discrimination the county’s most desirable residents, i.e., those who invest in county property and pay related property, general excise and income taxes.
It appears unfair and discriminatory that residents who have invested in real property that is not real estate, or in intangible, monetary or other assets that do not serve to bolster the Maui economy, are unfairly allowed to continue to benefit from the circuit breaker credit.
The statutory requirements further discriminate in that they single out owners who have a second property versus those whose property includes an ohana. Is an ohana not, in fact, a second property?