Montana’s HB 231 is a MASSIVE TAX SCAM

Montana Property Tax Reform: Breaking Down HB 231's Impact on Homeowners

Montana's House Bill 231 introduces sweeping changes to property tax rates that will significantly affect different categories of homeowners across the state.

With the current median home value at $378,000, here's how the legislation will impact various types of property owners.

The Big Picture: Tax Rate Changes

The bill fundamentally restructures Montana's property tax system, moving away from a single rate for residential property to a tiered system with reduced rates for certain categories and higher rates for high-value properties. Montana’s HB 231: Socialist Redistribution Disguised as Tax Relief

Make no mistake: this bill is not tax relief for all Montanans. It is a calculated wealth redistribution scheme that forces some property owners to subsidize others through selective tax breaks. While politically favored homeowners may receive temporary rate reductions, the bill systematically shifts the tax burden onto entity owners, commercial properties, and non-qualifying residents who face a brutal 40.7% base rate increase.

This is socialism in action: government picks winners and losers, redistributes wealth through the tax code, and expands bureaucratic control over property ownership. The Austrian school teaches us that true tax reform treats all citizens equally under law. HB 231 does the opposite, creating arbitrary classes of taxpayers where some pay more so others can pay less.

The “relief” is an illusion. When government shifts tax burdens rather than reducing total taxation, it merely changes who gets robbed to pay for the state’s ever-expanding appetite. This is not capitalism; it is crony redistribution wrapped in populist rhetoric, designed to divide property owners against each other while the state grows fat on the proceeds.

True tax relief cuts rates for everyone. HB 231 cuts rates for some by raising them on others. This is not relief; it is robbery disguised as tax-cuts.

Category 1: Owner-Occupied Principal Residences (The Winners)

Tax Rate: Graduated up to 1.1% of market value (down from current rates): 0.76% on value up to the median, 0.90% on median to 2x median, 1.10% on 2x to 4x median

Who Qualifies:

• Homeowners who live in their property at least 7 months per year

• Property serves as their only principal residence

• Must be current on property tax payments

• CRITICAL RESTRICTION: Must be owned by individuals, NOT entities

The Entity Exclusion: The bill explicitly states that "class four residential property owned by an entity is not eligible to receive the homestead reduced tax rate." This means properties owned by:

• LLCs

• Corporations

• Partnerships

• Irrevocable trusts

• Foreign entities

Are automatically disqualified from the homestead rate, regardless of how the property is used.

Limited Exception: Only "grantor revocable trusts" (living trusts) can qualify, and only if the grantor uses the property as their principal residence.

Special Transition Rules (2025-2026):

• Automatic qualification for those who received the 2025 property tax rebate

• Property ownership must be unchanged since the rebate qualification period

• Starting in 2027, homeowners must apply annually by March 1

Impact: For a median-value home ($378,000), this represents significant savings compared to other categories, with annual taxes of approximately $2,873 before local mill levies.

Category 2: Long-Term Rental Properties (Also Winners)

Tax Rate: Graduated up to 1.1% of market value

Who Qualifies:

• Single-family homes, condos, manufactured homes rented for periods of 28+ days

• Must be rented at least 7 months per year

• Tenants must use property as their primary residence

• Up to 5 months of vacancy allowed

• Annual reapplication required

• CAN be owned by entities - unlike homestead properties, rental properties owned by LLCs, corporations, etc. can qualify

Impact: Rental property owners who meet long-term rental criteria receive the same preferential rate as owner-occupied homes, encouraging stable rental housing.

Category 3: High-Value Properties (The Penalty Zone)

Tax Rate: Mixed rates with surcharge

For properties valued above $1.512 million (4 times the median):

• First $1.512 million: Standard rate (graduated up to 1.1% if qualifying, otherwise 1.9%)

• Amount above $1.512 million: 2.66% (1.9% × 1.4 multiplier)

Impact: High-value homeowners face significantly higher taxes on the portion of their property value exceeding the threshold, creating a progressive tax structure.

Category 4: Short-Term Rentals and Non-Qualifying Properties (The Biggest Losers)

Tax Rate: 1.9% of market value (increased from previous rates)

Who Gets This Rate:

• Vacation rentals and Airbnb properties

• Properties rented for less than 28 days at a time

• Properties vacant more than 5 months

• Investment properties not used as long-term rentals

• Second homes not used as principal residences

• ANY property owned by an entity that doesn't qualify as a long-term rental

Impact: These property owners face the highest standard residential tax rate, with a median-value property paying approximately $7,182 annually before local mill levies.

Category 5: Properties in Transition - The One-Acre Opportunity

Tax Rate: 1.35% of market value

The Critical Provision: One Acre

The bill specifically states that this preferential rate applies to "1 acre of real property beneath residential improvements on land described as agricultural land." This creates a specific tax planning opportunity that property owners may legitimately utilize.

Who Gets This Rate:

• Residential improvements on agricultural land - but only for 1 acre

• Residential improvements on forest land - but only for 1 acre

• Properties that don't qualify for homestead or rental reduced tax rates

The Entity Ownership Trap

The Hidden Tax Penalty for Business Structures

Many Montana property owners use LLCs or other entities for legitimate business reasons:

• Liability Protection: Shielding personal assets from potential lawsuits

• Estate Planning: Facilitating transfer to heirs

• Business Operations: Managing rental properties professionally

• Privacy: Keeping ownership information confidential

However, under HB 231, this business-savvy approach comes with a severe tax penalty.

Real-World Impact Examples:

Scenario 1 - The LLC-Owned Primary Residence:

• Individual owns $500,000 home personally: Blended rate ≈0.80% = $4,000/year

• Same home owned by LLC: 1.9% rate = $9,500/year

• Annual penalty for liability protection: $5,500

Scenario 2 - The Vacation Home Dilemma:

• $700,000 vacation home owned personally: 1.9% rate = $13,300/year

• Same home owned by LLC: Still 1.9% rate = $13,300/year

• No additional penalty (already at highest rate)

Scenario 3 - The Estate Planning Problem:

• Wealthy family transfers $1.2M home to irrevocable trust for estate planning

• If owned personally with homestead exemption: Blended rate ≈1.00% = $12,000/year

• Owned by irrevocable trust: 1.9% = $22,800/year

• Annual penalty for estate planning: $10,800

The Rental Property Exception: Interestingly, the bill allows entities to claim the rental property reduced tax rate. This means:

• LLC-owned long-term rental: Can qualify for graduated rate up to 1.1%

• LLC-owned owner-occupied home: Stuck at 1.9% rate

• The law actually favors business ownership of rental properties over personal residences

Strategic Implications:

Option 1 - Accept the Tax Penalty Some property owners may decide the liability protection and other benefits of entity ownership justify the higher tax cost.

Option 2 - Individual Ownership with Insurance Property owners might transfer entity-owned homes back to individual ownership and rely on umbrella insurance policies for liability protection.

Option 3 - Grantor Revocable Trust Strategy For primary residences, wealthy individuals could use grantor revocable trusts (living trusts) which still qualify for homestead exemptions while providing some estate planning benefits.

Option 4 - The Rental Conversion Strategy Some entity-owned properties might be converted to long-term rentals to access the graduated rate, though this requires giving up personal use of the property.

Real-World Scenario: The Multiple Property Owner

Consider a Montana resident who owns both a $1.3 million primary residence in Bozeman and a $700,000 vacation home in West Yellowstone:

If owned individually:

• Primary Home: Blended rate ≈1.03% = $13,390/year (homestead exemption)

• Second Home: 1.9% rate = $13,300/year (no exemption available)

• Total: $26,690/year

If owned through LLCs:

• Primary Home: 1.9% rate = $24,700/year (no homestead for entities)

• Second Home: 1.9% rate = $13,300/year (already at highest rate)

• Total: $38,000/year

• Annual penalty for entity ownership: $11,310

Commercial Property Impact

The bill also restructures commercial property taxes:

• Properties under 6 times median commercial value: 1.5%

• Properties above that threshold: 1.9%

Key Dates and Implementation

• 2025-2026: Transition period with automatic qualification for many homeowners

• March 1, 2026: Deadline for non-automatic homestead applications for 2026

• 2027 onwards: Annual application required for all homestead exemptions

• March 1 annually: Application deadline for reduced rates

Planning Considerations

1. Entity Ownership Review: Property owners should immediately review their ownership structures and consider whether the tax penalty outweighs the benefits of entity ownership.

2. Trust Structure Analysis: Those with irrevocable trusts may need to reconsider their estate planning strategies given the tax implications.

3. Liability Insurance Alternatives: Individual ownership combined with comprehensive umbrella insurance policies may be more cost-effective than entity ownership with higher property taxes.

4. Rental Conversion Analysis: Some entity-owned properties might benefit from conversion to long-term rental status to access reduced rates.

5. Professional Consultation: The interaction between property tax law, entity law, estate planning, and liability protection requires professional legal and tax advice.

Bottom Line

Montana's House Bill 231 reshapes property taxation with far reaching consequences, eroding the foundations of a free market and individual liberty. From an Austrian perspective, this legislation distorts economic incentives and punishes property owners, as Ludwig von Mises cautioned in Human Action: "Government intervention falsifies economic calculation" (Mises, 1949, p. 758). By imposing tiered tax rates favoring owner occupied and long term rental properties while penalizing high value homes and short term rentals at 1.9%, the bill disrupts the spontaneous order Friedrich Hayek emphasized in "The Use of Knowledge in Society." 
Central planners, blind to dispersed market knowledge, create inefficiencies and misalignments that risk malinvestment (Hayek, 1945, p. 520). For Montanans, this means higher costs for second homes, vacation rentals, or entity owned properties, with a median $378,000 home facing up to $7,182 annually in taxes for non qualifying owners.
Murray Rothbard's assertion that "taxation is theft" resonates deeply (For a New Liberty, 1973, p. 27). HB 231's progressive structure and restrictive exemptions weaponize taxation to coerce compliance, undermining property rights and economic freedom. Property owners must now navigate a maze of applications, ownership restructurings, or rental conversions to mitigate the state's fiscal grasp. This bill is a stark reminder of the need to resist centralized overreach and defend the right to prosper unhindered by bureaucratic edicts.

If you like this article and want to get involved, visit us at https://www.mtmises.org/

_______________________________________________________________________

Further Reading:

Here are direct links to primary sources or detailed explanations from the Mises Institute (a reliable repository for Austrian economics works) for the cited economists and their ideas referenced in the "Bottom Line" section. These are based on their original writings or key essays where the concepts originate.

Ludwig von Mises on state interventions distorting market signals and punishing productive capital allocation: This concept is central to Mises' critique of interventionism, where government actions interfere with price signals and entrepreneurial decisions. See his book Human Action (Chapter XXVI: The Impossibility of Economic Calculation Under Socialism, and sections on interventionism), available in full here: mises.org/library/human-action-0. For a concise overview, read his essay on the boom-bust cycle and monetary distortions: mises.org/mises-wire/specter-hyperinflation-looms-over-economy.

Friedrich A. Hayek on the "knowledge problem": This refers to Hayek's famous argument that central planners cannot efficiently allocate resources because they lack the dispersed knowledge held by individuals in the market. The primary source is his 1945 essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society", reprinted in full here: mises.org/mises-daily/use-knowledge-society. For further context, see this discussion: mises.org/mises-wire/federal-reserves-permanent-knowledge-problem.

Murray N. Rothbard's dictum "taxation is theft": Rothbard explicitly argues that taxation is a form of coercive theft, violating property rights. This is elaborated in his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (Chapter 3: The State), available here: mises.org/library/book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto. A direct article affirming this phrase: mises.org/mises-wire/yes-taxation-theft.