Montana
Questions and answers about Montana’s new second-home tax
In an effort to lower property tax bills for homeowners and landlords who provide long-term rental housing, the state Legislature and Gov. Gianforte passed major tax relief legislation this year. As it’s implemented this year and next, the package will scale back taxes on most houses being used as primary residences while offsetting those cuts with higher taxes on most other residential properties starting in 2026.
As we cover the new tax policy, which the Montana Department of Revenue expects to boost second-home taxes by 68% on average, the MTFP newsroom is fielding many, many questions from readers. We’re compiling the most frequent ones — and the best answers we currently have — below.
We’ll update this story periodically as other questions roll into our inboxes and as officials release additional information on how the specifics of the new tax policy will work. As always, we’d love to hear comments and questions at news@montanafreepress.org.
Q: When will the second-home tax take effect?
Interim rates will lower taxes for many residential properties on the tax bills sent by county treasurers this fall. However, the second-home tax won’t be implemented until 2026 tax bills, when it will raise taxes on most residential properties that don’t qualify for a “homestead” exemption.
Proponents had initially wanted to make the second-home tax effective this year, but added provisions for an interim year after negotiations on it dragged into the final days of the legislative session, missing the February deadline Gianforte had initially said would be necessary for the revenue department to implement the full policy this year.
Q: Who is eligible for the lower residential homestead rates?
A: Two types of residential property owners: Homeowners who live in their homes at least seven months a year and landlords who rent homes out on long-term leases for at least seven months a year. Long-term means leases that last at least a month, like the leases used for resident rental housing but unlike the terms for Airbnb-style short-term rentals.
Q: Will there be more property tax rebates?
Yes. The Legislature also authorized a round of $400 rebates for homeowners, which will be available this year and apply against last year’s tax bill. Those follow the $675 rebates the Legislature authorized for homeowners in each of 2024 and 2023.
The new tax law requires the revenue department to mail a notice about the rebates to potentially eligible property owners by June 30. Eligible homeowners who meet the same seven-month occupancy standard that will be used for the eventual homestead exemption will be able to claim the rebate by applying between Aug. 15 and Oct. 1 this year.
Q: Do I need to apply to avoid paying the second-home tax?
Yes. When it takes full effect in 2026, the new law will assess higher taxes on any residential property that doesn’t qualify for the homestead exemption. Homeowners and landlords will need to apply to the revenue department for the exemption that will qualify them for lower rates.
Once homeowners are qualified for the homestead exemption, they will remain qualified until they sell the property, move elsewhere or apply for a homestead on a different residence. Landlords will need to periodically reapply to certify properties are still being used as long-term rentals.
Additionally, homeowners who qualify for a property tax rebate this year will be automatically qualified for the homestead exemption going forward.
Q: How do I apply?
As of May 2025, the revenue department hasn’t yet published the necessary forms, but homeowners and landlords will be able to apply either by mail or online. The new law specifies that the application deadline for 2026 tax bills will be March 1, 2026.
The applications will ask property owners to formally declare that they’re using a property as either a principal residence or long-term rental. If the department discovers a taxpayer has fraudulently claimed the benefit, the law specifies that they will have to pay a penalty of three times the amount saved and be subject to potential criminal prosecution under a state law that can n result in a $500 fine and a jail term of up to six months.
Eligible homeowners and landlords who fail to apply for the homestead rates initially may be able to receive refunds if they appeal successfully after receiving higher tax bills.
Q: I’ve heard there’s an exception for homes on agricultural land?
Yes. The tax package’s long-term rates place residential structures on agricultural land at their current levels regardless of whether they qualify as principal residences, an exemption intended to shield worker bunkhouses and other secondary residences in farm complexes from the second-home tax. That provision also means that second homes — including many high-value ones — located on qualified agricultural properties will be largely shielded from the second-home tax.
Separately from the second-home tax debate, revenue department officials and some lawmakers have expressed concern that it may be too easy to qualify undeserving properties for an agricultural status under current law, a process that currently requires reporting only $1,500 a year in agricultural income. A bill that would have tightened the qualification requirements for the agricultural designation, introduced separately from the property tax relief package, failed to pass the Legislature this year.
Q: What if I run an Airbnb out of part of my home? Will that keep me from qualifying for the homestead exemption?
You’ll probably be fine. The bill doesn’t explicitly address this situation, but the definition of “principal residence” included in the law focuses on whether a taxpayer owned and occupied a given residential property for at least seven months of the year. It also says you can’t claim more than one property as a principal residence, but doesn’t say anything about what you’re doing with a property other than living on it.
Q: Will family cabins pay the second-home tax?
A: Unless they qualify for the homestead reduction, yes. The new law doesn’t distinguish between family cabins owned by Montana residents and luxury real estate owned by out-of-state residents.
Q: Why doesn’t the second-home tax apply only to out-of-state residents?
Because that would likely be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional discrimination. As legislative attorneys studying tax issues for lawmakers have noted in the past, the U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that have been interpreted as limiting how much power states have to discriminate against nonresidents, particularly with regards to freedom of movement and economic activity. For example, a 1975 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court barred New Hampshire from imposing higher income taxes on nonresident commuters.
There is some legal nuance involved — the Supreme Court, for instance, ruled in 1978 that Montana could charge nonresidents higher hunting license fees because hunting is a recreational activity involving a state-owned resource. Even so, most legal analysts seem to think lawmakers are on much firmer ground by pegging their definitions to how much time a property owner spends living on or renting a given property, rather than their state of residence.
Q: Will the tax relief force local government budget cuts?
No — at least in theory. The way the state’s property tax system works means that most local taxes “float” to collect a given budget amount. As such, tax bills will generally shift around so lower homeowner taxes are offset by higher taxes on other types of property, primarily businesses under the interim rates for this year, then a combination of businesses and second homes in future years.
The legislation also includes a provision intended to avoid short-term revenue reductions for taxes defined in terms of non-floating mills, a category that encompasses voter-authorized local taxes in some parts of the state.
The other wrinkle is that two of Montana’s municipalities, population-121,000 Billings and population-350 Sunburst, have provisions in their charters that could keep taxes from floating to accommodate the downward valuation shifts produced by the relief legislation. That’s caused particular angst in Billings, the state’s largest city, and spurred lawmakers to include a provision in the tax legislation that purportedly overrides those charters to keep revenues constant. It’s unclear, however, whether that override attempt would survive a court challenge, so the bill includes another provision specifying the state will backfill municipal revenues to 2025 levels if the override clause is struck down.
Q: Where can I read the full second-home tax legislation?
This is actually quite tricky. The new tax policy was passed as two conjoined bills with some redundant language and convoluted coordinating clauses for reasons that have to do with arcane legislative politicking.
If that doesn’t scare you off, start with Senate Bill 542 (text here). However, disregard SB 542’s sections 4 and 14, which were adjusted by provisions in House Bill 231 (its sections 29 and 27, respectively). Note that other coordinating language in HB 231 (its section 31) nullifies most of HB 231’s other contents to avoid redundancy with SB 542.
Q: I tried reading the bills and … how exactly do they provide me with tax relief?
We feel your pain.
Here’s a short answer: Lawmakers are adjusting statewide property tax rates to dial back the tax values for homestead-eligible residential properties. Montana’s property tax math translates your taxable value to your share of the collective bills for schools, roads, law enforcement and other local government services. So scaling down tax values for primary residences while boosting them second homes will shift taxes away from homeowners without defunding services.
The shift will also raise taxes for some business properties — particularly this year, as the interim rates reduce taxes for primary residence before the second-home tax revenue is available next year. The measure does include a provision intended to limit the impact on smaller business properties.
As for a longer answer? Stay tuned — we’re working on something.
Q: How much will my taxes change?
By the time the second-home tax is fully implemented in 2026, projections from the revenue department estimate the average owner-occupied home will see taxes decrease by 18% and the average long-term rental property will see a 22% decrease.
However, actual changes will vary place to place depending on factors including the composition of the local tax base and how specific counties, cities and school districts are managing their budgets. Bills for individual properties will also depend on shifts in the formal tax valuations due from the revenue department in the coming weeks.
We wrote a separate story about the department’s projections, including visual breakdowns for different property types and county-by-county figures. It’s available here: How Montana’s new second-home tax could shift your property tax bill.
Have questions about the second-home tax and homestead? We’d love to hear from you — and plan to update this piece as new questions pop up and new information becomes available. Reach out at news@montanafreepress.org.
LATEST STORIES
Montana’s American Indian Caucus touts historic success in 2025 legislative session
The state’s American Indian Caucus is a group of about a dozen Native American lawmakers who work together to advance legislation they say is good for Indian Country. This year, the group saw historic success in advancing their priority bills.
Questions and answers about Montana’s new second-home tax
In an effort to lower property tax bills for homeowners and landlords who provide long-term rental housing, the state Legislature and Gov. Gianforte passed major tax relief legislation that will scale back taxes on most homes being used as primary residences while offsetting those cuts with higher taxes on most other residential properties starting in 2026. The MTFP newsroom is fielding many, many questions about new tax law from readers. Here are the most common ones — and the best answers we currently have.
Plaintiffs from landmark Held case file constitutional climate case against Trump, federal agencies
The federal lawsuit Eva Lighthiser and her co-plaintiffs filed on May 29 challenges three executive orders that Trump issued during the first three months of his second term in the White House. The plaintiffs argue that the orders have suppressed climate science and slowed the transition to renewable energy sources in favor of fossil fuels, “thereby worsening the air pollution and climate conditions that immediately harm and endanger Plaintiffs’ lives and personal security.”
MISSOULA — Four out of five members of Montana’s Public Service Commission were in a federal courtroom in Missoula Thursday morning, as the PSC’s former president challenges the disciplinary action taken against him earlier this year. Now, newly released documents are shedding more light on to what led up to this point.
(Watch the video for a closer look at the case.)
New documents shed light Montana PSC dispute
Commissioner Brad Molnar has sued President Jeff Welborn, Vice President Jennifer Fielder and Commissioner Annie Bukacek – the three PSC members who voted in May to require him to work remotely, after an investigation into complaints about his workplace conduct. Molnar has claimed he is being unfairly punished for constitutionally protected speech, and he asked Senior U.S District Judge Donald Molloy to allow him to return to the PSC offices.
Matthew Monforton, Molnar’s attorney, told the judge that barring Molnar from the building was limiting his ability to do his job.
“He has not been officially kicked out of office, but his voice has clearly been diminished,” said Monforton.
But Natasha Jones, an attorney representing the other three commissioners, said the findings were about behavior, not just speech, and that the PSC’s action was a reasonable response.
“These are serious concerns about a pattern of conduct that has made employees quit,” she said.
Jonathon Ambarian
On Tuesday, Molloy ordered the release of redacted versions of two full investigative reports into Molnar’s conduct – more than 100 pages of documents. Monforton had moved for the full reports to be made public, and Molloy ruled attorneys for the other PSC members hadn’t shown a compelling reason to keep the documents under seal as long as the names of people involved in the investigation were obscured.
While the names remained redacted in the investigation reports, the attorneys for Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek also filed additional documents – including a public declaration from Bukacek and from former PSC executive director Alana Lake, providing information about their allegations against Molnar.
The two reports, from an outside investigator, cover Molnar’s alleged actions over two periods: the first from February to August 2025, and the second from August to October 2025. The investigation began after the first formal complaint, filed by Bukacek in May 2025 – though the reports say employees had been bringing up concerns about Molnar’s behavior informally for several months prior.
Bukacek’s complaint claimed Molnar had repeatedly made what she called “sexualized and demeaning comments.” The examples she cited included saying the PSC should replace “Taco Tuesdays” with “Topless Tuesdays,” reminiscing about watching girls in bikinis as a teenager, and commenting about the beauty of women in areas of China who didn’t get “old and wrinkly.”
In her declaration, Bukacek also claimed Molnar had “maliciously disseminated false information” about her and “engaged in behavior that was dismissive, derisive and otherwise abusive.”
“My primary concern now is not for my safety nor my feelings, but for the rest of the staff who may not have the temperament to speak up or may feel too intimidated to speak up given concerns over job security,” Bukacek said in her declaration.
MTN News
The investigators determined Molnar had violated the PSC’s code of conduct by making comments of a sexual nature, and that it appeared his behavior had continued for some time after he was warned about it. They also found he had behaved unprofessionally and in a belittling manner toward Bukacek, though they said Bukacek herself had at times used “language that could be considered inappropriate” in emails to staff or other commissioners. Bukacek told MTN she “readily self corrected” any behaviors that were brought to her attention.
The investigation also found a violation in connection with a complaint from a PSC staff member, who said he “felt bullied” by Molnar when the commissioner sent an email complaining about his team not being “people with competence.”
However, much of the first report and the entire second report was focused on conduct after the initial complaints, when Molnar was accused of retaliating against people who participated in the investigation. Lake said in her declaration that she saw “an immediate and significant change in his behavior toward staff involved in the process.” She claimed he said he would use an attorney and private investigator to go after people who filed complaints, and she accused him of publicly criticizing her in interviews and removing her job responsibilities because of her handling of the investigation.
Lake said Molnar’s actions led to “declining morale within the agency,” undermined staff members’ ability to do their jobs and damaged her reputation. She said that led her to resign as executive director.
“I believe no employee should be forced to choose between reporting misconduct and protecting their career, reputation, or personal well-being,” she said in her declaration.
Lake has since become Helena city manager.
Jonathon Ambarian
The report said there was evidence to show Molnar had retaliated, including by “making disparaging statements about investigation participants” including Lake, by sending an email warning he could file complaints of his own against people involved, and by taking other actions investigators said could dissuade employees from reporting behavior in the future.
Monforton said during Thursday’s hearing that the initial comments Bukacek complained about were jokes Molnar had admitted were inappropriate, that he regretted saying them, and that he hasn’t made any similar comments in about a year. But he argued the vast majority of the findings against Molnar were about retaliation – and that those were primarily based on speech that the other commissioners don’t have the right to interfere with.
Monforton said it’s unreasonable to punish Molnar for what he said in the July news conference where he announced he was under investigation, in interviews with the media or in commission meetings. He said Molnar’s conduct doesn’t rise to the level of actual retaliation.
“This is an elected official, engaging in speech in his forum,” Monforton said.
He said Molnar may have made harsh comments toward staff, but that he had the right to raise objections about the way the agency does business.
Jonathon Ambarian
Monforton also argued the retaliation claims no longer justify keeping Molnar out of the office, since Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek voted to remove him as president in October and he no longer has the authority he’s accused of misusing. He said there haven’t been further complaints about his behavior since that time.
“We’re not asking for the moon and stars, we’re asking for the status quo as it existed for the last seven months,” he said.
Jones said there is enough evidence to show Molnar would have been punished regardless of whether any protected speech was excluded.
“This is not about a couple of jokes,” she said.
Jones said Molnar made maliciously false statements about people like Lake, and that type of statement isn’t covered by free speech protections.
She also said Molnar’s exclusion from the PSC offices is temporary, and that the PSC will reconsider whether to let him return if he apologizes for his actions, accepts the agency’s code of conduct and undergoes training.
Molloy indicated he saw indications that there was “acrimony” on both sides of the situation, and said he was skeptical it would be resolved easily.
“It would be nice if instead of juvenile behavior, there was professional behavior,” he said.
However, the judge said there was an avenue for Molnar to pursue if he wanted to reach a resolution.
Molloy took no immediate action Thursday. He told the parties he would rule as quickly as he could.
Carrie Gilbertson has been executive director of Cancer Support Community Montana for just under two months, stepping into the role in April with more than 15 years of nonprofit experience and a lifetime of Montana roots.
The organization provides psychosocial and mental health support to anyone affected by cancer — not just those with a diagnosis, but also family members and others walking alongside them.
WATCH: Meet the new leader of Cancer Support Community Montana 🎗️
Cancer Support Community Montana names new executive director
“This mission of providing psycho-social supports and mental health supports for anyone impacted by cancer, not just that person who has the diagnosis, but also family members, anyone who is walking alongside someone as they experience that often scary diagnosis, that’s just something that’s important to me,” Gilbertson said.
Gilbertson’s role extends beyond the Bozeman office. Cancer Support Community Montana’s Missoula location is already up and running, and a Helena location is expected to be operating soon. Each presents its own set of challenges.
“Each hospital is different. They might have different resources. Their social workers might be connecting to things in a different way. So understanding what those hospitals need, what different participants need in each community, is going to be different just because the communities are different, resources are different,” Gilbertson said.
The Bozeman office has been operating for more than 20 years, providing a foundation that supports the organization’s broader statewide efforts.
“I think this is a crew that looks at what does this community need what do our participants need what are some of the changing landscapes in cancer care what things are the gaps that we see that we can maybe just jump right in and you know let’s see if we can provide that for people so that’s something I really love about this crew that I work with and just this mission that there is some flexibility in being able to adjust and adapt as we learn more,” Gilbertson said.
Those adaptations show up in unexpected ways. The organization converts its parking lot into a pickleball court every Friday morning.
“I didn’t know there was a pickleball court. I pulled in actually with my daughter pulled in and she was is that pickleball court and I was like oh, it kind of looks like it is so yeah that’s fun, every Friday morning we clear out the parking lot and put up the net and I haven’t played yet I’ve been watching just to kind of see how that game works but they take it pretty seriously,” Gilbertson said.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
-
Augusta, GA4 minutes agoAugusta Dream Center sees surge in families needing food as summer begins
-
Washington, D.C5 minutes agoNational Geographic Explorers share their most memorable adventures ahead of new DC museum opening
-
Cleveland, OH13 minutes agoLOOK: Remembering the Cavs championship win, victory parade 10 years later
-
Austin, TX20 minutes agoJuneteenth celebrations in Austin include parade and fun run
-
Alabama23 minutes agoGov. Kay Ivey sets execution date for Jeremy Williams
-
Alaska28 minutes ago8 Prettiest Downtown Strips In Alaska
-
Arizona35 minutes agoFounding Fathers-themed ice cream parlor makes Arizona debut
-
Arkansas38 minutes agoOne dead in Lepanto drowning incident
