79–010 

Calendar No. 108 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 111–46 

MILITARY SPOUSES RESIDENCY RELIEF ACT 

JULY 15, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. AKAKA, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 475] 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (hereinafter, ‘‘Committee’’), 

to which was referred the bill (S. 475) to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (hereinafter, ‘‘SCRA’’) to guarantee the 

equity of spouses of military personnel with regard to matters of 

residency, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment, and recommends that 

the bill do pass. 

INTRODUCTION

On February 25, 2009, Committee Ranking Member Richard 

Burr introduced S. 475, the proposed ‘‘Military Spouses Residency 

Relief Act.’’ Senator Dianne Feinstein is an original cosponsor. Senators John Barrasso, Evan Bayh, Mark Begich, Christopher S. 

Bond, Sherrod Brown, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Roland W. 

Burris, Robert C. Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin L. Cardin, 

Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Jim 

DeMint, Richard Durbin, John Ensign, Judd Gregg, Orrin G. 

Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James M. Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, 

Mike Johanns, Tim Johnson, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph I. 

Lieberman, Blanche L. Lincoln, Mel Martinez, Lisa Murkowski, 

James E. Risch, Jeff Sessions, Richard C. Shelby, Olympia J. 

Snowe, Arlen Specter, Jon Tester, John Thune, Mark Udall, David 

Vitter, Roger F. Wicker, and Ron Wyden were later added as cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

On April 29, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on legislation 

pending before the Committee. Testimony on S. 475, among other 

bills, was offered by: Robert Jackson, Assistant Director, National 

Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; 

Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, AMVETS; R. 

Chuck Mason, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service; Ian de Planque, Assistant Director for Claims Service, Veterans 

Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion; and 

Rebecca Poynter, Director, Military Spouse Business Organization. 

COMMITTEE MEETING

On May 21, 2009, the Committee met in open session to consider 

legislation pending before the Committee. Among the measures so 

considered was S. 475. The Committee voted without dissent to report favorably S. 475 to the Senate. 

SUMMARY OF S. 475 AS REPORTED

S. 475 (hereinafter, ‘‘the Committee bill’’) would extend several 

SCRA protections to certain spouses of servicemembers: 

Section 2 would, in certain circumstances, allow the spouse 

of a servicemember, for purposes of voting in Federal, state, or 

local elections, to retain residency in a state from which the 

spouse is absent. 

Section 3 would, in certain circumstances, allow the spouse 

of a servicemember, for purposes of income taxes and personal 

property taxes, to retain residency in a tax jurisdiction from 

which the spouse is absent. 

Section 4 would suspend certain residency requirements for 

the spouse of a servicemember seeking to exercise certain land 

rights, such as mining claims or homesteading, on public lands. 

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

The Committee bill contains several provisions designed to afford 

certain SCRA protections to the spouses of military personnel. 

Congress has long recognized that the men and women of our 

military should be afforded civil legal protections, in order to allow 

them ‘‘to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.’’ 50 U.S.C. App. 502. Currently, these protections are provided 

by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act or SCRA. 

Among a wide range of protections, the SCRA allows a servicemember to maintain his or her residency for certain purposes, such 

as voting, income taxes, and personal property taxes, in a state 

from which the servicemember is absent in compliance with military orders. These protections essentially allow a servicemember to 

retain a ‘‘home’’ state while he or she is ordered to new locations 

by the military and to avoid many of the difficulties, burdens, and 

distractions associated with a permanent change of duty station. 

The amendments to the SCRA that would be made by the Committee bill would provide military spouses with SCRA residency 

protections similar to those afforded to servicemembers. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

Sec. 2. Guarantee of residency for spouses of military personnel for 

voting purposes. 

Section 2 of the Committee bill would, in certain circumstances, 

allow the spouse of a servicemember, for purposes of voting in Federal, state, or local elections, to retain residency in a state from 

which the spouse is absent. 

Background. Under section 705 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 

595), for purposes of voting in Federal, state, or local elections, if 

a servicemember leaves a state in compliance with military or 

naval orders, the servicemember will not, solely based on that absence, be deemed to have lost residence or domicile in that state, 

be deemed to have acquired residence or domicile in any other 

state, or be deemed to have become a resident of any other state. 

These protections allow the servicemember, as he or she is moved 

around the country by the military, to continue voting in the state 

he or she considers home and to avoid the confusion and difficulties 

of frequently changing his or her voter registration. 

However, if the servicemember’s spouse moves with the servicemember, that spouse is not afforded the same SCRA protections. 

The negative impact this may have on military spouses was described at the Committee’s April 29, 2009, hearing by Rebecca 

Poynter: 

Military Spouses are disenfranchised from voting; often 

times not arriving to a new state in time to vote in primaries and do not have ample opportunity to get to know 

the Federal, state or local candidates or adequate time to 

learn their policies and legislative agendas. It is confusing 

when one state allows a military spouse to vote via absentee ballot, yet the state where the spouse is physically located does not * * *. 

Similarly, in an April 28, 2009, letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee, the Air Force Association stressed 

that ‘‘the burdens placed on military spouses to simply exercise 

their Constitutional right to vote are a constant source of consternation and frustration for our military families.’’ 

Committee Bill. Section 2 of the Committee bill would amend section 705 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 595) to add a new subsection 

providing that, for purposes of voting in Federal, state, or local 

elections, if a spouse of a servicemember leaves a state in order to 

accompany the servicemember who is absent from that same state 

in compliance with military or naval orders, the spouse will not, 

solely based on that absence, be deemed to have lost residence or 

domicile in that state, be deemed to have acquired residence or 

domicile in any other state, or be deemed to have become a resident of any other state. These changes would apply with respect to 

absences from states on or after the date of enactment, regardless 

of the date of the relevant military or naval orders. 

These changes will allow certain military spouses, like servicemembers, to vote in the states they consider home and will reduce 

the confusion and difficulties now encountered by military spouses 

attempting to exercise their right to vote. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

Sec. 3. Determination for tax purposes of residence of spouses of 

military personnel. 

Section 3 of the Committee bill would, in certain circumstances, 

allow the spouse of a servicemember, for purposes of income taxes 

and personal property taxes, to retain residency in a tax jurisdiction from which the spouse is absent. 

Background. Under section 511(a) of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 

571), a servicemember does not lose or acquire residence or domicile, for purposes of income taxes and personal property taxes, 

based on the fact that the servicemember is absent from or present 

in any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely in compliance 

with military orders. Under section 511(b) of the SCRA, the 

servicemember’s military compensation will not be considered income in a tax jurisdiction where the servicemember is serving in 

accordance with military orders and is not a resident. Also, under 

section 511(c), the personal property of a servicemember will not be 

deemed to be present in a tax jurisdiction in which the servicemember is serving in accordance with military orders, unless that 

jurisdiction is the servicemember’s domicile or residence. 

With these protections, if a servicemember is ordered to a duty 

location in a new state, the servicemember is free to bring to the 

new state his or her personal property, such as an automobile, 

without risk that the property will be taxed in that state. Also, the 

servicemember will not be required to pay income taxes on his or 

her military income in a state other than the one he or she has declared as his or her home state. 

However, in some states, if the servicemember’s personal property is jointly titled with his or her spouse, the SCRA protection 

regarding personal property taxes will not apply. In fact, in 1992, 

the National Military Family Association testified before the House 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs that, ‘‘in some States, [the family] 

car must be registered in the servicemember’s name only in order 

for the family to be protected against personal property tax’’ and 

that, ‘‘[i]n addition to creating difficulties if the servicemember dies 

or in cases of divorce, the current situation has left many military 

spouses feeling they are perceived as excess baggage.’’ 

More recently, the Department of Defense submitted testimony 

for the Committee’s April 29, 2009, hearing addressing the same 

issue. In part, the Department of Defense provided this explanation 

of the current problem: 

(i) Section 511 of the SCRA states that the personal property 

of a servicemember shall not be deemed to be located within 

a tax jurisdiction of the United States if the servicemember is 

not a resident or domiciliary of the jurisdiction in which the 

servicemember is serving in compliance with military orders. 

(ii) Many states conclude that property (most often this is an 

automobile) jointly held by a servicemember and spouse is not 

protected from taxation by Section 511 of the SCRA. 

(iii) Thus to ensure the tax benefit, the servicemember must 

register the property in his or her name only. This is contrary 

to the recommendations that we provide Servicemembers for 

estate planning purposes. 

In addition, at the Committee’s April 29, 2009, hearing, Rebecca 

Poynter provided a description of how this impacts military families: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

For personal property; current, and often conflicting, 

state laws create financial and administrative burdens for 

the military spouse resulting in the suppression of assets. 

While an active duty servicemember may title, register, 

and maintain, a car in their home state, their spouse may 

not. With each move, if a spouse chooses to keep his/her 

joint tenancy of personal property, they must change the 

registration and/or titling to the new state; requiring the 

spouse pay several hundred dollars each time they relocate. To alleviate these types of fees, many spouses are 

forced to put all property in the name of the servicemember. 

Military families are also impacted by the current state of the 

law regarding state income taxes. There are significant differences 

between the states, ranging from states that have no income tax 

to those that impose up to an 11% marginal income tax. Because 

the income of a military spouse is not protected under the SCRA, 

a spouse’s income may be taxed in any jurisdiction where the 

spouse moves to accompany the servicemember. As a result, if a 

working military spouse moves around the country with the servicemember, their family income may vary significantly based on 

where the servicemember is sent by the military. 

In addition to the potential financial burdens this may cause for 

military families, the military spouse may be required to file tax 

returns in multiple jurisdictions. The complexities of this situation 

were described by a military spouse in the attachment to testimony 

for the Committee’s April 29, 2009, hearing: 

Taxes are a confusing mess. My husband has residency 

in one state and I have residency in another state. Just 

this year our tax attorney had to redo our taxes because 

she was confused about both of our states of 

residence * * *. Next year is going to be even more confusing when I have a business registered in one state. My 

husband is a resident in another state and I will have 

been a resident of both Virginia and California * * *. 

Committee Bill. Section 3 of the Committee bill would amend section 511 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 571) to provide that, for purposes of income taxes and personal property taxes, the spouse of 

a servicemember will not be deemed to have lost or acquired domicile or residence by reason of being absent from or present in a tax 

jurisdiction solely to be with a servicemember who is in compliance 

with military orders and has the same original residence or domicile as the spouse. In addition, it would add a new subsection to 

section 511 providing that income for services performed by the 

spouse of a servicemember will not be deemed to be income in a 

tax jurisdiction where the spouse is located solely to be with the 

servicemember who is serving there in compliance with military 

orders. 

Also, the Committee bill would amend section 511 to provide that 

the personal property of the spouse of a servicemember will not be 

deemed to be present in a tax jurisdiction in which the servicemember is serving in accordance with military orders, unless that 

jurisdiction is the servicemember’s or the spouse’s domicile or residence. These changes would apply with respect to any state or local 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

income tax return filed for any taxable year beginning with the 

taxable year that includes the date of enactment. 

These changes will allow spouses to title personal property in 

their own names or jointly with their servicemember-spouses, without the potential tax ramifications that are possible under current 

law. In addition, these changes will reduce some of the confusion, 

difficulties, and burdens now faced by military families when they 

are moved to a new state. 

Sec. 4. Suspension of land rights residency requirements for spouses 

of military personnel. 

Section 4 of the Committee bill would suspend certain residency 

requirements for the spouse of a servicemember seeking to exercise 

certain land rights, such as mining claims or homesteading, on 

public lands. 

Background. Under section 508 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 

568), a servicemember is entitled to have certain residency requirements suspended for purposes of exercising land rights, such as 

mining claims or homesteading, on public lands. This protection applies with respect to requirements related to the establishment of 

residency within a limited time. Those requirements will be suspended for a servicemember seeking entry onto public lands until 

180 days after termination of or release from military service. Similar rights are not provided to the spouses of servicemembers. 

Committee Bill. Section 4 of the Committee bill would amend section 508 of the SCRA to suspend certain residency requirements for 

the spouse of a servicemember seeking entry onto public lands. 

This protection would apply with respect to requirements related 

to the establishment of residency within a limited time. Those requirements would be suspended for the spouse of a servicemember 

seeking entry onto public lands until 180 days after the servicemember’s termination of or release from military service. These 

changes would apply with respect to servicemembers in the military on or after the date of enactment. 

These changes would afford the spouse of a servicemember some 

of the same SCRA land-rights protections that are now afforded to 

servicemembers. 

COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee, based on information supplied 

by the Congressional Budget Office (hereinafter, ‘‘CBO’’), estimates 

that enactment of the Committee bill would, relative to current 

law, not have a significant effect on the Federal budget. It would 

impose an intergovernmental mandate that would fall below the 

annual threshold established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. 

The cost estimate provided by CBO, setting forth a detailed 

breakdown of costs, follows: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, June 26, 2009. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, Chairman, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 475, the Military Spouses 

Residency Relief Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M. Wright. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 475, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act 

Summary: S. 475 would extend to military spouses several residency-related benefits afforded to servicemembers under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act (SCRA). CBO estimates that implementing the bill would not have a significant effect on the Federal 

budget. 

S. 475 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by limiting the ability 

of state and local governments to collect income and property taxes. 

CBO estimates the total cost of complying with the mandate would 

fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of that act any 

legislative provisions that are necessary for enforcing the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that section 2 of 

this bill falls within that exclusion; we have not reviewed it for 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates. 

Basis of estimate: S. 475 would extend to military spouses certain 

benefits afforded servicemembers under the SCRA. Sections 2 and 

3 would allow military spouses to maintain a home-of-record for 

purposes of voting and taxation when they are absent from their 

home state to join active-duty spouses at military duty stations. 

Similarly, section 4 would suspend for military spouses the residency requirements for land rights under laws—such as mining 

and mineral leasing laws—relating to federally owned lands. Under 

S. 475, absence from the land due to a servicemember’s military orders would not require the military spouse to forfeit those land 

rights, regardless of their state of domicile, for a period ending six 

months after the servicemember’s discharge from active-duty 

service. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 475 contains an 

intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA. It would prohibit 

state and local governments from collecting taxes on an individual’s 

income or personal property, if that individual moved to the jurisdiction to accompany his or her spouse at a military-duty station. 

It would transfer authority to tax those individuals to the states in 

which they were legal residents before moving to the duty station. 

The effect on individual state and local revenue collections would 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

vary depending on the number and income of these individuals and 

where they reside or maintain legal residence. However, CBO estimates the net effect across states to be small and well below the 

annual threshold established in UMRA ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of that act any 

legislative provisions that are necessary for enforcing the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that section 2 of 

this bill falls within that exclusion because it would protect individual’s voting rights; we have not reviewed it for intergovernmental 

or private-sector mandates. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Dwayne M. Wright; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Burke Doherty; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Elizabeth Bass. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has made 

an evaluation of the regulatory impact that would be incurred in 

carrying out the Committee bill. The Committee finds that the 

Committee bill would not entail any regulation of individuals or 

businesses or result in any impact on the personal privacy of any 

individuals and that the paperwork resulting from enactment 

would be minimal. 

TABULATION OF VOTES CAST IN COMMITTEE

In compliance with paragraph 7 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following is a tabulation of votes cast in 

person or by proxy by Members of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs at its May 21, 2009, meeting. On that date, the Committee 

considered and ordered reported S. 475, as amended, a bill to guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with regard to 

matters of residency, and for other purposes. The Committee bill 

was agreed to by a vote of 14 to 0. 

Yeas Senator Nays 

X (by proxy) Mr. Rockefeller 

X Mrs. Murray 

X (by proxy) Mr. Sanders 

X Mr. Brown 

X Mr. Webb 

X Mr. Tester 

X Mr. Begich 

X Mr. Burris 

X (by proxy) Mr. Specter 

X Mr. Burr 

X Mr. Isakson 

X (by proxy) Mr. Wicker 

X Mr. Johanns 

Mr. Graham 

X Mr. Akaka, Chairman 

14 TALLY 0 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(9) 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATOR AKAKA 

I have been concerned for some time that the Senate Veterans’ 

Affairs Committee is not the appropriate committee to have jurisdiction over the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA). This bill 

is a perfect example of the reason for my concern since it, like all 

of the SCRA, has no relationship to an individual’s rights as a veteran but relates solely to the rights and protections afforded those 

who are serving on active duty. 

That overarching issue aside, I have significant concerns about 

this legislation. 

First, as reported, the legislation addressing the state of residency for tax purposes would create a disparity in the treatment 

between a servicemember and his or her spouse which would place 

the spouse in a better position than the servicemember. As proposed, any income earned by a spouse while accompanying a servicemember would not be subject to taxation in the jurisdiction of 

military service. However, if a servicemember were to earn additional income, through a business endeavor or a part-time job, the 

servicemember’s additional income would be subject to taxation in 

that jurisdiction. 

Second, I make special note of the informal comments of the Department of Defense on this measure which were received from the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness). These views, which I am including at the end of my views, 

raise issues of limited Federal interest, impact on employability, 

and heightened scrutiny of servicemembers’ declared domiciles by 

the states. 

Finally, I note that, according to testimony received by the Committee at its hearing on April 29, there are legitimate questions 

about the constitutionality of the legislation. Although the Supreme 

Court ruled in 1953 in Dameron v. Brodhead, 345 U.S. 322, that 

SCRA is constitutional under Congress’ authority ‘‘to declare War’’ 

and ‘‘to raise and support Armies,’’ it is not clear that exempting 

individuals who are not members of the Armed Forces from taxation in the jurisdiction in which their spouses are stationed contributes to those authorities. I have appended to my views an analysis of the measure from a constitutional perspective that was prepared in response to a request I made of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

(PERSONNEL AND READINESS) 

JULY 2009 

INFORMAL COMMENTS

Subject: S. 475, ‘‘Military Spouses Residency Relief Act’’ (The Act) 

Language/Provision: The Act amends several provisions of the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) (50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501, et 

seq.) to: 

a. guarantee residency for spouses of military personnel for 

voting purposes; 

b. guarantee residency for spouses of military personnel for 

tax purposes and to exempt income earned in the non-domiciliary State from taxation; and 

c. extend suspension of homestead residency requirements to 

spouses. 

DOD POSITIONS/COMMENTS: 

a. For the reasons noted in paragraph b, the Department of Defense (DOD): 

(1) does not object to Section 2 of the proposed bill: ‘‘Guarantee of Residency for Spouses for Voting’’; 

(2) strongly objects to Section 3 of the proposed bill: ‘‘Determination for Tax Purposes of Residence of Spouses of Military 

Personnel’’ and recommends an alternate consideration; and 

(3) does not object to Section 4 of the proposed bill. 

b. Comments by Section: 

(1) Guarantee of Residency for Spouses for Voting (Section 2). 

(a) The guarantee of residency for voting in new section 

705(b) of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 595) would not provide any protections when the servicemember and spouse 

are co-located in the State from which they would be absent but are not both domiciliaries of that State. Furthermore, new section 705(b) of the SCRA would not provide 

any protections if both the servicemember and the spouse 

were domiciliaries of the same State and left that same 

State, but not together (e.g., the servicemember is assigned 

unaccompanied to Korea, and the spouse goes to a different State to live with a relative). 

(b) Even though the above two scenarios are not uncommon, there may be some practical benefits to those spouses 

who are covered under the proposed amendment and seek 

to vote in the domiciliary State. Accordingly, we do not object to this section of the proposed amendment. 

(2) Guarantee of Residency for Spouses for Taxation (Section 

3). The proposed amendment to section 511 of the SCRA (50 

U.S.C. App. § 571) shields the income of a spouse (under the 

stated conditions) from taxation in the non-domiciliary State 

where the spouse is currently located with the servicemember. 

Although, the proposed amendment would provide a financial 

windfall for military families whose State of domicile would not 

tax the income earned in the non-domiciliary State, it could 

have significant and detrimental long-term effects that would 

offset the arbitrary tax windfall that some would receive. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
11 

(a) This proposed amendment upsets the entire theory of 

taxation as it has traditionally applied to the spouse. In 

general, a State imposes tax on the worldwide income of 

individuals who are resident or domiciled in that State. 

States impose tax on nonresidents of the State to the extent the nonresident receives income earned or derived 

from that State. The burden on a spouse who is employed 

in a tax jurisdiction where the member is assigned is 

the same as that of every other citizen of that State—no 

greater or less. Furthermore, the spouse receives the benefits of services and employment protections provided by 

the State. 

(b) There is limited Federal interest involved in ensuring 

the spouse’s income is not taxed in the non-domiciliary 

State where it is earned. There would be, however, great 

Federal interest in ensuring that the spouse’s income is 

not taxed in both the domiciliary State and the non-domiciliary State where earned, but we are not aware that this 

is happening or that this bill is in any way intended to address that possibility. Rather, the purpose of this bill appears to be to encourage military members and their 

spouses to seek assignments to one of the seven States 

that do not have a personal income tax and to become a 

domiciliary of that State. For those not so fortunate, the 

spouses could find themselves paying more State taxes 

when moving from a domiciliary State with higher income 

taxes to a non-domiciliary State with lower income taxes. 

(c) The inherent unfairness and arbitrary nature of this 

scheme compounds the States’ legitimate concerns if prohibited from taxing compensation earned within their borders by those who live there and use its resources and 

services. Some might question why DOD would care about 

this proposal’s effect on any particular State. The Department is and should always be concerned when the proper 

and fair balancing of interests under the SCRA becomes 

too far skewed in favor of the servicemember. Such imbalance could lead to a backlash of ill will from the State. 

(i) For example, approximately 24 States currently 

do not pay spouses unemployment benefits when they 

are forced to relocate under military orders with their 

military member spouse. For some time, DOD has 

urged those 24 States to reconsider their position and 

extend unemployment benefits to such spouses. The 

proposed legislation would provide a compelling disincentive for the remaining 24 States to adopt a more 

favorable practice. 

(ii) In addition, this proposal could undercut employment opportunities for spouses who seek employment 

with State governments. States could choose to hire 

someone who will be part of the tax base instead of 

the spouse. Although there are anti-discrimination 

provisions in the SCRA, such discrimination would be 

difficult to prove. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
12 

(iii) Also, the loss of revenue for the States could 

cause them to challenge assertions of domicile for the 

spouse and then for the servicemember as well. Proving domicile can be complicated and time consuming. 

It may well prove impossible if the servicemember and 

spouse have not established the appropriate contacts 

to prove their intent with respect to domicile. The unintended consequences of increased scrutiny of the 

spouse’s assertion of domicile, and the likely scrutiny 

of the servicemember’s own domicile as well, could 

well lead to the collection of back taxes that would offset any benefits this provision might provide. 

(d) This proposal would actually provide greater tax protection for the spouse than for the servicemember (assuming the tax rate in the non-domiciliary State is less than 

the rate in the domiciliary State). It would shield all income by the spouse (at least in the non-domiciliary State) 

under the noted conditions. Conversely, only military compensation for the servicemember is shielded. Thus, the 

servicemember who moonlighted on the weekend would 

pay State taxes on that income to the non-domiciliary 

State, but the spouse would pay none for any work performed in the non-domiciliary State, and, depending on the 

law of the domiciliary State, may not pay any taxes at all. 

(e) If in spite of our objections, Congress believes that 

this provision should become law, we recommend that a 

provision be added that would eliminate the requirement 

for an employer in the non-domiciliary State to withhold 

State income taxes from the spouse on behalf of the domiciliary State for services performed in the non-domiciliary 

State. This would result in an additional administrative 

burden on the employer solely because the employer hired 

a spouse of a military member. We are concerned that 

such an administrative burden could provide another disincentive for the non-domiciliary State to hire the spouse. 

(f) The proposed amendment to current section 511(c)(1) 

of the SCRA would relieve the spouse from personal property tax in the non-domiciliary State to the same extent 

that the Servicemember would be relieved. We support 

this initiative but recommend that it be accomplished by 

amending current section 511(f)(1) of the SCRA to redefine 

personal property to include property owned jointly by a 

servicemember and his or her dependent or dependents. 

(i) We are concerned that the requirement in proposed section 511(a)(2) of the SCRA that the spouse be 

present in the non-domiciliary State (‘‘to be with the 

servicemember’’) could qualify the proposed language 

in current section 511(c)(1) and (2) so that the benefits 

of the section would not apply when the servicemember is present in a non-domiciliary State without 

the spouse—as is frequently the case with mobilized 

reservists—and the property is held jointly. 

(ii) Our proposed amendment to current section 

511(f)(1) (as opposed to the proposed amendment to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
13 

1 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501 et seq. 

2 Congress has long recognized the need for protective legislation for servicemembers whose 

service to the Nation compromises their ability to meet obligations and protect their legal interests. During the Civil War an absolute moratorium on civil actions brought against soldiers and 

sailors was enacted (Act of June 11, 1864, ch. 118, 13 Stat. 123). During World War I, Congress 

enacted the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 440 (1918); followed by the 

Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Act of 1940 (Act of October 17, 1940, ch. 888, 54 Stat. 1178) during World 

War II. 3 50 U.S.C. app. § 502. 

current section 511(c) (1) and (2)) would avoid all the 

difficulties we have voiced above and also extend protections to property held not simply with the spouse 

but with dependents as well. 

(3) Suspension of Land Rights Residency Requirement for 

Spouses of Military Personnel (Section 4). The proposed 

amendment to section 508 (b) of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 

§ 568) extends the suspension of residency requirement for 

the establishment of a property right to spouses. Section 

508 deals with land rights of Servicemembers who may 

have an interest in mining claims or homesteading public 

lands. We have no objections to the proposed amendment 

to section 508(b). 

* * * * * * * 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 

Washington, DC, May 26, 2009. 

Ms. BABETTE POLZER, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF S. 475, 111TH CONG., 1ST SESS., THE

‘‘MILITARY SPOUSES RESIDENCY RELIEF ACT’’ 

This memorandum is in response to your request to evaluate the 

constitutionality of S. 475, the ‘‘Military Spouses Residency Relief 

Act.’’ The bill, if enacted, would extend certain protections under 

the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) 1 to the spouses of 

servicemembers. S. 475 would amend three sections of the SCRA: 

(1) 50 U.S.C. § 568, Land rights of servicemembers; (2) 50 U.S.C. 

§ 571, Residence for tax purposes; and (3) 50 U.S.C. § 595, Guarantee of residency for military personnel. Arguably, the proposed 

amendments could reduce burdens on military families related to 

residency and taxation issues that often arise as a result of frequent duty station transfers. However, to the extent that the bill, 

as drafted, confers certain benefits on a servicemember’s spouse 

that are independent from those of the servicemember, its constitutionality may raise a question of first impression. 

The SCRA was enacted on December 19, 2003, as a modernization and restatement of protections and rights previously available 

to servicemembers.2 The purpose of the Act is to provide for, 

strengthen, and expedite the national defense by protecting servicemembers, enabling them to ‘‘devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.’’ 3 The SCRA generally protects servicemembers by temporarily suspending certain judicial and adminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:53 Jul 16, 2009 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
14 

4 ‘‘Tax jurisdiction’’ is defined to include ‘‘a State or a political subdivision of a State,’’ which 

would include the District of Columbia and any commonwealth, territory or possession of the 

United States (Sec. 101(6)). ‘‘Taxation’’ includes licenses, fees, or excises imposed on an automobile that is also subject to licensing, fees or excise in the servicemember’s state of residence. 

‘‘Personal property’’ includes intangible and tangible property including motor vehicles. 

trative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect 

their legal rights during military service. 

Proposed changes to the SCRA 

50 U.S.C. § 568 provides various land right protections for 

servicemembers, including rights in public lands, desert lands, 

mining claims, and mineral permits and leases. Under these protections, servicemembers may maintain rights to access and use 

public lands and to enter desert lands obtained before entering 

military service. The servicemember may also retain mining claims 

and mineral permits and leases in the event of nonperformance of 

the requirements of the lease while on active duty. Generally, an 

individual must be at least 21 years old in order to exercise such 

land rights; however the Act creates an exception to the age requirement and allows all servicemembers, regardless of age, to exercise rights related to lands owned or controlled by the United 

States. Additionally, residency requirements for purposes of exercising the land rights, are suspended for six months after release 

from military service. As enacted, the Act does not provide the 

same protections and rights to a servicemember’s spouse or dependents. Under S. 475, the spouse of a servicemember would be 

entitled to the same suspension of residency requirements for a period of 6 months after the servicemember is released from military 

service. 

50 U.S.C. § 571 prevents multiple state taxation on the property 

and income of military personnel serving within various tax jurisdictions 4 by reason of military service. The Act provides that ‘‘[a] 

servicemember shall neither lose nor acquire a residence or domicile for purposes of taxation with respect to the person, personal 

property, or income of the servicemember by reason of being absent 

or present in any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely in 

compliance with military orders.’’ The duty station tax jurisdiction 

may not include military compensation earned by a nonresident 

servicemember to compute its state income tax liability. The duty 

station jurisdiction may tax non-military income earned by the 

servicemember and/or the spouse. Additionally, personal property 

of a servicemember is not be subject to taxation by a jurisdiction 

other than his or her domicile or residence while serving at a duty 

station outside of his or her home state. S. 475 would expand the 

language concerning residency for tax purposes to include the 

spouse of a servicemember. Under the proposed language, the 

spouse would neither lose nor acquire a state of domicile or residence for taxation purposes when he or she accompanies the 

servicemember to a duty station outside the home state in compliance with military orders. Income earned by, and personal property 

of, the spouse, while in a jurisdiction pursuant to the military orders, would not be subject to taxation by that jurisdiction. Rather, 

the income and property of the spouse would be subject to taxation 

only by his or her home state. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
15 

5 Article I, § 1, of the Constitution provides that ‘‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall 

be vested in a Congress of the United States * * *.’’ Unlike a typical grant of power to states, 

Article I, § 1, does not grant to Congress ‘‘all legislative power,’’ but rather grants to Congress 

only those specific powers enumerated in § 8 and elsewhere in the Constitution. 6For instance, Article I, § 8, cl. 18 provides that ‘‘[t]he Congress will have power * * *. To 

make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing 

Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United 

States or in any Department or Officer thereof.’’ Early in the history of the Constitution, the 

Supreme Court found that this clause enlarges rather than narrows the powers of Congress. As 

stated by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819): ‘‘Let 

the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are 

appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent 

with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.’’ 7 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 11–14 provide that: The Congress shall have power * * *. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land 

and Water[;] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be 

for a longer Term than two Years[;] To provide and maintain a Navy[;] To make Rules for the 

Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. 8 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 64–68 (1981); Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 353–58 (1980); 

Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 746–48 (1975); Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 837–38 

(1976). See Johnny Killian, Kenneth Thomas, & George Costello, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: 

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 332 (2002 ed.). 9Dameron v. Brodhead, 345 U.S. 322 (1953) (The case questioned a provision in the Soldier’s 

and Sailor’s Civil Relief Act, but for ease of discussion this memorandum will refer to the SCRA 

and its predecessor as the ‘‘Act’’). 10The challenged section being § 514 of the SSCRA (50 U.S.C. App. § 574), restated and codified as § 571 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. § 571). 

50 U.S.C. § 595 provides that military personnel are not deemed 

to have changed their state residence or domicile for the purpose 

of voting for any Federal, state, or local office, solely because of 

their absence from the respective state in compliance with military 

or naval orders. S. 475 would expand the provision to apply to the 

spouse of a servicemember, therefore guaranteeing that his or her 

state residence or domicile for the purpose of voting for any Federal, state, or local office, would not change solely because of an absence from the respective state while accompanying a spouse to a 

duty station in compliance with military orders. 

Constitutional Analysis 

The question at issue is whether the proposed amendment could 

precipitate a conflict between congressional power to regulate the 

military pursuant to its constitutional War Powers and the reserved right of the states to tax. The powers of the Federal Government, while limited to those enumerated in the Constitution,5 have 

been interpreted broadly, so as to create a large potential overlap 

with state authority.6 Significant powers exercised by Congress are 

the War Powers,7 which include the power to raise and support an 

army. The scope of the congressional and executive authority to 

prescribe the rules for the governance of the military is broad and 

subject to great deference by the judiciary.8

Although such issues have rarely come before the U.S. Supreme 

Court, it has considered the structure and balance of the SCRA in 

circumscribing state law in order to promote the interests of the 

military as an entity, and servicemembers in their individual capacity. In Dameron v. Brodhead,9 the Court addressed the question 

of the power of the Federal Government to limit a state’s right to 

tax property within its jurisdiction. The case involved a challenge 

to the provision in the Act prohibiting state taxation on the property and income of military personnel serving within a tax jurisdiction in compliance with military orders.10 Dameron, a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force, sued Brodhead, in his capacity 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
16 

11 Brodhead at 324–325 (Citing Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., 342 U.S. 232 (holding that contractors with the Atomic Energy Commission were exempt from state sales and use tax by section 9(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946)). 12 Id. at 325 (internal citations omitted). 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 327 (Citing Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5). 16 Id. 17 New York v. Graves, 306 U.S. 466 (1939). 

as a city and county official of Denver, Colorado, for the recovery 

of $23.51 in taxes on his personal property assessed while Dameron 

was stationed in Colorado. Dameron argued that his domicile was 

Louisiana and that pursuant to the SCRA he was exempt from assessment by a tax jurisdiction other than his domicile. Brodhead 

asserted that the language of the Act did not prevent Colorado 

from taxing the servicemember’s personal property because the 

law’s purpose was to prevent multiple taxation of military personnel, and since Louisiana had not taxed Dameron’s personal 

property, Colorado could. If the SCRA did prevent the tax in question, Dameron contended that it was unconstitutional. With respect 

to the constitutional question, the Court stated that: 

[t]he constitutionality of Federal legislation exempting 

servicemen from the substantial burdens of seriate taxation by the states in which they may be required to be 

present by virtue of their service, cannot be doubted. Generally similar relief has often been accorded other types of 

Federal operations or functions. And we have upheld the 

validity of such enactments, even when they reach beyond 

the activities of Federal agencies and corporations to private parties who have seen fit to contract to carry on functions of the Federal Government.11

The Court held that servicemembers’ ‘‘duties are directly related 

to an activity which the Constitution delegated to the National 

Government * * * ‘to declare war’ and ‘to raise and support Armies.’ ’’ 12 The Court further held that ‘‘congressional exercise of a 

‘necessary and proper’ supplementary power such as this statute 

must be upheld.’’ 13 In effect, SCRA preempts state laws which 

would tax the service-related income or personal property of 

servicemembers at their duty station when it is not their domicile. 

The Court concluded the constitutional discussion by stating, 

‘‘[w]hat has been said in no way affects the reserved powers of the 

states to tax. For this statute merely states that the taxable domicile of servicemen shall not be changed by military assignments. 

This we think is within the Federal power.’’ 14

In contrast, the dissent in Dameron emphasized states’ right to 

tax over Congress’ War Powers authority, stating ‘‘[t]he power to 

tax is basic to the sovereignty of the states.’’ 15 Acknowledging that 

limits exist on congressional restrictions on states’ right to tax, the 

dissent looked to those instances where a Federal instrumentality, 

or the means by which an instrumentality performs its functions, 

are immune from state tax as being most similar to the prohibition 

under the Act.16 It noted a previous holding in Graves v. New 

York 17 that wages of Federal employees, which include servicemembers, could be taxed on a nondiscriminatory basis by the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
17 

18 Brodhead at 328 (Douglas, J., dissenting). 19 Id. at 328–329. 20 Id. at 329. 21 50 U.S.C. app. § 527. 22 50 U.S.C. app. § 518. 

states.18 The dissent further argued that a servicemember ‘‘receives 

protection and benefits from the society which the states create and 

maintain * * *. If he gets tax immunity, it means that other citizens must pay his share.’’ 19 It concluded with the assertion that 

‘‘[w]hen Congress undertakes to protect [servicemembers] from 

state taxation or regulation, it is not acting to protect either a Federal instrumentality or any function which a Federal agency performs. Congress, therefore, acts without constitutional authority.’’ 20

A solid majority (seven of the nine Justices) concurred in the majority opinion in Dameron, with much of the discussion focused on 

the servicemember’s relationship to the Federal Government. The 

Court reasoned that servicemember’s ‘‘duties’’ are directly related 

to an activity (to raise and support an army) delegated to Congress, 

and, as such, within Congress’ authority to regulate. The full extent of Congress’ authority to extend limitations on the reach of 

state law with regard to individuals, based exclusively on a spousal 

relationship with a servicemember, is less clear. Previously Congress expanded certain protections of the Act to include spouses 

and/or dependents of servicemembers (e.g., maximum interest rate 

on debts 21), but generally these protections require the existence of 

a joint obligation before the Act may be invoked. The Act does 

allow for a spouse and/or dependent of a servicemember to petition 

a court for certain protections under the SCRA, but the court may 

only extend the protections if it finds that the ability to comply 

with the terms of a covered contract are materially impaired by the 

military service of the person upon whom he or she is dependent.22

If enacted, S. 475 would provide individual protections to the 

spouse of a servicemember with respect to residency for land 

rights, taxes and voting purposes. The common requirement of the 

expanded protections is that the spouse must accompany the 

servicemember on military orders away from his or her domicile. 

However, it appears that the proposed amendments create an inconsistency in taxation of servicemembers and their spouses. Currently, any income earned by a spouse and any non-military income 

earned by the servicemember may be taxed by the duty station tax 

jurisdiction. Under the proposed amendments, the spouse would 

not be subject to tax at the duty station, but non-military income 

earned by the servicemember would still be subject to taxation 

by the duty station tax jurisdiction. Arguably, the spouse of a 

servicemember would enjoy greater protections, i.e., immunity from 

duty station income tax, under the SCRA than would the servicemember. 

Federal regulation of state residency requirements may in itself 

be unusual, but there does not appear to be a significant question 

as to whether Congress’ War Powers are sufficient to support such 

a regulation. The interest of the Armed Forces in family cohesion 

and troop morale may be sufficient justification for a legal requirement allowing servicemembers and their dependants to maintain 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
18 

23 Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575 (1943). 24 50 U.S.C. app. § 502. 25 In a similar manner, Congress has acted to prohibit states and/or local jurisdictions from 

assessing a personal property tax on a motor vehicle owned by a Member of Congress (or by 

his or her spouse) while maintaining a place of abode for purposes of attending sessions of Congress (H.R. 3067, § 3067, incorporated into Act of December 19, 1985, Public Law 99–190, 

§ 101(c), 99 Stat. 1224 by Act of December 22, 1987, Public Law 100–202, § 106, 101 Stat. 1329). 

the same domicile regardless of where they are stationed. It could 

be argued that this requirement would serve the broader interests 

of the Federal Government in raising and maintaining its troops 

and therefore be within Congress’ constitutional authority. In 

Boone v. Lightner, the U.S. Supreme Court, while addressing the 

level of discretion afforded courts under the SCRA, stated that 

‘‘[t]he [Act] is always to be liberally construed to protect those who 

have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens 

of the Nation.’’ 23 The stated purpose of the Act is ‘‘to provide for, 

strengthen, and expedite the national defense’’ by minimizing burdens on servicemembers, enabling them to ‘‘devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.’’ 24 It may be plausibly argued that simplifying residence requirements to include spouses, 

presumably individuals who organize their affairs to accompany 

servicemembers to their duty station, allows servicemembers to 

‘‘devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.’’ 25

The degree to which permitting military families to limit income 

tax payable on non-military income earned in the duty station jurisdiction achieves comparable goals, without imposing undue limitations on the duty-station state, is not settled. 

R. CHUCK MASON, 

Legislative Attorney. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(19) 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATOR BURR 

On February 25, 2009, I introduced S. 475, the Military Spouses 

Residency Relief Act, along with Senator Feinstein, in order to provide military spouses with residency protections similar to those afforded to military personnel under the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act (hereinafter, ‘‘SCRA’’). Since then, 41 Senators have been added 

as cosponsors and the bill has been endorsed by a long list of organizations, including the Air Force Association, the Military Officers 

Association of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 

States, and AMVETS. I am pleased that the Senate Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs (hereinafter, ‘‘Committee’’) also demonstrated its 

support for this bill by voting to favorably report it to the full Senate. Although the Committee report explains the Committee’s rationale for that decision, I am including these supplemental views 

to explain the reasons why I personally believe this bill is the right 

thing to do. 

The law this bill amends, the SCRA, is the most recent in a series of laws passed during the past two centuries to afford civil protections to the men and women who serve in our Nation’s Armed 

Forces. In part, the SCRA allows a servicemember to maintain residency in a single state, for purposes of voting and paying taxes, as 

he or she is moved around the country by the military. See 50 

U.S.C. App. 571, 595. These and other protections in the SCRA are 

one way a grateful nation accounts for the fact that military personnel ‘‘drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the Nation.’’ Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575 (1943). 

But, today, the burdens of the Nation are not borne by servicemembers alone; they are shared by the military spouses who move 

around the country and the world in support of our Nation’s allvolunteer force. These spouses leave behind their homes, friends, 

and jobs in order to put servicemembers and the military ahead of 

their own needs. Indeed, studies by the RAND Corporation have 

found that military wives move farther and more often than their 

civilian counterparts; are more likely to be unemployed than the 

average civilian spouse; and, even if they do find work, tend to 

earn less than civilian wives. See ‘‘Working Around the Military: 

Challenges to Military Spouse Employment and Education,’’ at 18, 

48 (2004); ‘‘Working Around the Military’’ Revisited, at 1, 3 (2007). 

In addition to making great personal sacrifices to support the 

military, it is now widely recognized that military spouses play an 

important role in the success of our Armed Forces. In fact, Military 

Spouse Day was first proclaimed by President Ronald Reagan 25 

years ago to acknowledge ‘‘the profound importance of spouse commitment to the readiness and well-being of servicemembers * * * 

and to the security of our Nation.’’ Proclamation 5184 (April 17, 

1984). More recently, the RAND Corporation stressed in its 2004 

study that ‘‘[s]uccessful recruiting and retention of the active duty 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

force relies in large part on the extent to which servicemembers 

and their spouses experience both job satisfaction and contentment 

with life in the military.’’ ‘‘Working Around the Military: Challenges to Military Spouse Employment and Education,’’ at xvii. 

These sentiments clearly are shared by senior Army leaders who 

recently signed the Army Family Covenant, in which they ‘‘recognize the commitment and increasing sacrifices that our families are 

making every day’’ and ‘‘recognize the strength of our Soldiers 

comes from the strength of their Families.’’ As Secretary of the 

Army Pete Geren said in signing the covenant, ‘‘[t]he readiness of 

our all-volunteer force depends on the health of the Families.’’ 

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,153120,00.html (last visited June 9, 2009). In short, servicemembers and their families are 

a package deal—if you lose the family, you will lose the servicemember. 

Unfortunately, the SCRA has not yet been updated to recognize 

the role of military spouses or to ease their burdens as they move 

to new duty stations with their servicemember-spouses. For example, under the SCRA, if a servicemember moves to a new state in 

compliance with military orders, the servicemember may continue 

to vote in the state he or she considers home; the servicemember’s 

military pay may be taxed only in that home state; and any personal property the servicemember brings to the new state will not 

be subjected to taxation in that state. See 50 U.S.C. App. 571, 595. 

However, if a servicemember’s spouse leaves the same state and 

travels to a new state with that servicemember, the spouse is not 

afforded similar protections. The spouse may have to register to 

vote and file tax returns in every state in which they live. Also, in 

some states, the family assets must be held solely in the servicemember’s name in order to protect them from being taxed by those 

states. 

In addition to the hassles this may cause for military families, 

as they move to a new state every few years, this sends the wrong 

message to military spouses. As the National Military Family Association testified back in 1992, ‘‘the current situation has left many 

military spouses feeling they are perceived as excess baggage.’’ H. 

Hrg. 102–35, at 3, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, April 29, 

1992. Similarly, the Committee recently heard from a military 

spouse who provided this assessment: ‘‘As a military spouse I feel 

like I am forced into unnecessary hardships that could be easily 

rectified.’’ Attachment to testimony of Mrs. Rebecca Poynter, at 4, 

Hearing on Pending Benefits Legislation, Senate Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs, April 29, 2009. 

In my view, this situation should not be allowed to continue. It 

is time for Congress to update the law to reflect the true role of 

military spouses and to alleviate these unnecessary hardships. I believe this bill would take a significant step in that direction, by allowing military spouses to vote and pay taxes in their home states. 

This should reduce some of the hassles and confusion of moving 

every time the servicemember is ordered to a new duty station and 

will allow military spouses the flexibility to hold property in their 

own names. Perhaps more importantly, it will send a clear message 

to military spouses that we, as a Nation, appreciate their sacrifices 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

and are grateful for the contributions they make every day to the 

success of our Armed Forces. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(22) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the Committee bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman). 

TITLE 50. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE 

TITLE 50 APPENDIX—WAR AND 

NATIONAL DEFENSE 

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the‘‘Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as 

follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Purpose. 

TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII—FURTHER RELIEF 

Sec. 701. Anticipatory relief. 

Sec. 702. Power of attorney. 

Sec. 703. Professional liability protection. 

Sec. 704. Health insurance reinstatement. 

øSec. 705. Guarantee of residency for military personnel.¿ 

Sec. 705. Guarantee of residency for military personnel and spouses of military personnel. 

Sec. 706. Business or trade obligations. 

SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—TAXES AND PUBLIC LANDS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 508. LAND RIGHTS OF SERVICEMEMBERS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.—Any requirement related to the 

establishment of a residence within a limited time shall be susVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:53 Jul 16, 2009 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
23 

pended as to entry by a servicemember in military service or the 

spouse of such servicemember until 180 days after termination of or 

release from military service. 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 511. RESIDENCE FOR TAX PURPOSES. 

(a) RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE.—øA servicemember¿ (1) IN GEN- ERAL.—A servicemember shall neither lose nor acquire a residence 

or domicile for purposes of taxation with respect to the person, personal property, or income of the servicemember by reason of being 

absent or present in any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely 

in compliance with military orders. 

(2) SPOUSES.—A spouse of a servicemember shall neither lose nor 

acquire a residence or domicile for purposes of taxation with respect 

to the person, personal property, or income of the spouse by reason 

of being absent or present in any tax jurisdiction of the United 

States solely to be with the servicemember in compliance with the 

servicemember’s military orders if the residence or domicile, as the 

case may be, is the same for the servicemember and the spouse. 

(b) MILITARY SERVICE COMPENSATION.—Compensation of a servicemember for military service shall not be deemed to be income for 

services performed or from sources within a tax jurisdiction of the 

United States if the servicemember is not a resident or domiciliary 

of the jurisdiction in which the servicemember is serving in compliance with military orders. 

(c) INCOME OF A MILITARY SPOUSE.—Income for services performed by the spouse of a servicemember shall not be deemed to be 

income for services performed or from sources within a tax jurisdiction of the United States if the spouse is not a resident or domiciliary of the jurisdiction in which the income is earned because the 

spouse is in the jurisdiction solely to be with the servicemember 

serving in compliance with military orders. 

ø(c)¿ (d) PERSONAL PROPERTY.— 

(1) RELIEF FROM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.—The personal 

property of a servicemember or the spouse of a servicemember 

shall not be deemed to be located or present in, or to have a 

situs for taxation in, the tax jurisdiction in which the servicemember is serving in compliance with military orders. 

(2) EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY WITHIN MEMBER’S DOMICILE OR

RESIDENCE.—This subsection applies to personal property or its 

use within any tax jurisdiction other than the servicemember’s 

or the spouse’s domicile or residence. 

(3) EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY USED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS.— 

This section does not prevent taxation by a tax jurisdiction 

with respect to personal property used in or arising from a 

trade or business, if it has jurisdiction. 

(4) RELATIONSHIP TO LAW OF STATE OF DOMICILE.—Eligibility 

for relief from personal property taxes under this subsection is 

not contingent on whether or not such taxes are paid to the 

State of domicile. 

ø(d)¿ (e) INCREASE OF TAX LIABILITY.—A tax jurisdiction may not 

use the military compensation of a nonresident servicemember to 

increase the tax liability imposed on other income earned by the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
24 

nonresident servicemember or spouse subject to tax by the jurisdiction. 

ø(e)¿ (f) FEDERAL INDIAN RESERVATIONS.—An Indian servicemember whose legal residence or domicile is a Federal Indian reservation shall be taxed by the laws applicable to Federal Indian 

reservations and not the State where the reservation is located. 

ø(f)¿ (g) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) PERSONAL PROPERTY.—The term ‘‘personal property’’ 

means intangible and tangible property (including motor vehicles). 

(2) TAXATION.—The term ‘‘taxation’’ includes licenses, fees, or 

excises imposed with respect to motor vehicles and their use, 

if the license, fee, or excise is paid by the servicemember in the 

servicemember’s State of domicile or residence. 

(3) TAX JURISDICTION.—The term ‘‘tax jurisdiction’’ means a 

State or a political subdivision of a State. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII—FURTHER RELIEF 

SEC. 701. * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 705. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL AND 

SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

øFor¿ (a) IN GENERAL.—For the purposes of voting for any Federal office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local office, a person 

who is absent from a State in compliance with military or naval 

orders shall not, solely by reason of that absence— 

(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in that 

State, without regard to whether or not the person intends to 

return to that State; 

(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in 

any other State; or 

(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident of 

any other State. 

(b) SPOUSES.—For the purposes of voting for any Federal office 

(as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local office, a person who is absent from a State because the person is accompanying the person’s 

spouse who is absent from that same State in compliance with military or naval orders shall not, solely by reason of that absence— 

(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in that 

State, without regard to whether or not the person intends to 

return to that State; 

(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in any 

other State; or 

(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident of 

any other State. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING