Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

Il - Illinois Veterans Benefits


Recommended Posts

Pete,

Thanks! And yes. I am from Illinois. And thanks for the offer to help. I will sure keep that in mind.

I think that HB0273 is much more clear as far as widows are concerned, than the current law. I would be happy if it stays that way. But language changes around when bills are re-drafted. And to me, I would prefer for Congress to be CLEAR that their intent is for widows to be entitled to the benefit, if that is their true intent.

I am not certain I agree that the bill cannot be read different ways.

""Disabled veteran" means a veteran who was honorably

discharged with a service-connected disability and for whom

documentation, in any form, from any branch of the United

States Armed Forces has been issued certifying that the veteran

suffers from a disability."

I can see that being read to mean any honorably discharged veteran who has a service connected disability. But I can also see it being read as any veteran who had a service connected disabilty WHEN they were discharged.

Because of the language use - I do not think it is all that clear.

I would much prefer -

""Disabled veteran" means any honorably discharged veteran who has a service-connected disability and for whom documentation from the Department of Veteran Affairs, or documentation in any form, from any branch of the United States Armed Forces, has been issued certifying that the veteran suffers from a disability."

Actually, since they just go by the Dept of Veteran Affairs percentage, I don't even know WHY they have anything about documentation from the branches of the service. Those documents will nt do any good, without the certification of percentage from the VA.

I see, as it is written, vets going to apply, and being turned down because though they have a VA __% SC rating, they were not " honorably discharged WITH a service-connected disability" and only their VA documents show service connection - but their branch of service did not issue any documentation CERTIFYING they suffered from a disability.

TO me - it looks like it would most likely just cover vets who were medically discharged.

Why not - ""Disabled veteran" means any honorably discharged veteran who has a service-connected disability as determined by the Department of Veteran Affairs."

I like THAT!!!

Free

Free Spirit -

Sorry to hear that...Wish you the best, don't know what to

say....Are you from Illinois? Did your spouse retire from the

military? Are you getting jerked around? Give me some insight

and I'll help what ever way I know, may not be much, but

could have an perspective not looked into. I do know that

going to the County and asking them for help or advise is

like talking to a wall without references. I have been down that

road and that is why I am such a advocate on this HB0273.

It is very hard, almost impossible to deviate from the way

that it is written.

Take Care,

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Free Spirit-

You bring up some very good points. I am going to do some

deciphering and see if I can figure out how they can screw it up

because they will. The only thing I can think of off the top of

my head from the % from different branches of service is depending

on the Branch of service the veteran of was from, and is where the

medical documentation came from for the VA to determine the % that

they award.

Right now HB0273 is simple compared to Public Act 95-0644

Section 35 ILCS 200/169 new. The County Accessors rewrote that

compared how the law is written (EAV). I am just wondering if all counties

in Illinois cipher "spouse" and intittlement the same as you mentioned. That

is so wrong, but it is the People Puppet Politics in Positions of Power,

and I'm a firm believer in "Power in Numbers" that can over come these

goofy positions. They are thier for themselves and job security, 5/6

of them have never had any dealings with or in the military.

Take Care,

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about the counties. And usually each person at the county office will tell you something different.

I am VERY concerned about the language on this!!!! Though it says the percentage of reduction will be based on the VA percentage - it specifically SAYS:

""Disabled veteran" means a veteran who was honorably

discharged with a service-connected disability and for whom

documentation, in any form, from any branch of the United

States Armed Forces has been issued certifying that the veteran

suffers from a disability."

""Disabled veteran" means a veteran who was honorably

discharged with a service-connected disability - *I* read that to mean the veteran was honorably discharged WITH a service connected disability. (i.e. medically discharged.)

It does NOT say a disabled veteran means an honorably discharged veteran who HAS a service connected disability.

Those are two specifically different classes of people.

And because they also tie it in with the REST of the sentence ---

"documentation, in any form, from any branch of the United States Armed Forces has been issued certifying that the veteran suffers from a disability."

It confirms the intent is for the veteran to have paperwork CERTIFYING the vet suffers from a disability FROM a BRANCH OF SERVICE.

I don't even think this is twisted - this is the way it reads.

If they want the tax abatement to apply to ALL vets with service connected disabilities - they need to clear up that sentence on "discharged WITH a service connected disability" and take out the requirement for them to have paperwork CERTIFYING the disability from a BRANCH of the SERVICE.

The way it is written - it appears to me the intent is to provide abatement for vets who are medically discharged. Other vets might have evidence in their medical records showing injuries and illnesses. But they have NO record CERTIFYING they are DISABLED- EXCEPT the VA record (which you notice is NOT listed along with the Branches of Service).

I haven't really kept up with this legislation. So I don't really know the history. Have they DISCUSSED it on the Floor yet? Transcripts from these sessions might show their intent - and how THEY are interpreting it.

Free

Free Spirit-

You bring up some very good points. I am going to do some

deciphering and see if I can figure out how they can screw it up

because they will. The only thing I can think of off the top of

my head from the % from different branches of service is depending

on the Branch of service the veteran of was from, and is where the

medical documentation came from for the VA to determine the % that

they award.

Right now HB0273 is simple compared to Public Act 95-0644

Section 35 ILCS 200/169 new. The County Accessors rewrote that

compared how the law is written (EAV). I am just wondering if all counties

in Illinois cipher "spouse" and intittlement the same as you mentioned. That

is so wrong, but it is the People Puppet Politics in Positions of Power,

and I'm a firm believer in "Power in Numbers" that can over come these

goofy positions. They are thier for themselves and job security, 5/6

of them have never had any dealings with or in the military.

Take Care,

Pete

Edited by free_spirit_etc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I have 4 or 5 House Representatives that have said on email

that they will or strongly consider Co-Sponsoring HB0273, but

have yet to see any support. Is anyone else in this situation?

I'm going to give them a week and then call their bluff.

Free-Spirit = I checked into your question, and it is as it is

written, % based on disabilty %, it will be next to impossible

for the county assessors to fug it up. I keep all documented

coorespondance between our House Representatives, Senators

and myself for reference in case I get a Brain *art.

Take care,

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free-Spirit = I checked into your question, and it is as it is

written, % based on disabilty %, it will be next to impossible

for the county assessors to fug it up. I keep all documented

coorespondance between our House Representatives, Senators

and myself for reference in case I get a Brain *art.

Take care,

Pete

Pete,

Could you tell me what you meant by "checked into" my question?

Does that mean you actually checked into my question - and asked someone who is "in the know" to clarify if the tax reduction APPLIES to ALL disabled vets, and not just those who were certified disabled at discharge? Or does that mean you re-read the law and it is your opinion it will apply to everyone?

I am concerned because it seems like the issues are being clouded here.

One issue involves the percent of the reduction. I agree with you that the law is very clear that the percent of the reduction is based on the percent of disability from the VA.

However, the other issue is who actually qualifies for the reduction. It is THAT part of the issue that concerns me. The percentage has nothing to do with WHO is eligible. It only applies once eligibily is established.

So again, I am not clear on what you meant by the statement you checked into my question.

I am not trying to be difficult. I have merely been in this position several times before, though it was mostly in regard to Union negotiations. I point out something the law / rule / proposal actually STATES - and the fact that it could lead to a problem. But I am often met with people intepreting the law / rule / proposal differently (mostly interpreting it more like they WANT it to be, rather than how it actually reads). And of course, they think I am taking it too literally - disregard the warnings - and move forward.

Unfortunately, the law / rule / proposal is often passed - and unfortunately it usually means what I said it meant - and unfortunately everyone then starts complaining about how the other side is "screwing us over" because they are interpreting the law / rule / proposal EXACTLY as it is WRITTEN.

I would prefer to NOT see all your hard work go down the tubes in this case. I would prefer to NOT have to hear stories of how the Illinois disabled vets went to apply for their property tax reduction and were denied the reduction (despite the fact the VA has awarded them a certain percentage of disability) because they did not have a letter from their branch of the military certifying that they were disabled (as the law states is required to be defined as a "disabled veteran" for the purpose of this law).

If Congress intends for the law to cover ALL disabled vets, I think the law could be stated more clearly in that respect. If Congress does not intend for this to cover all disabled vets - I think we shoud know that upfront.

Again, I am not clear on what your statement you checked out my question meant - as your answer addresses the amount of the reduction, when my question was about the actual eligibility.

Free

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use