Feds Challenge NY SALT Limit Workaround
In his Estate Planning and Philanthropy column, Conrad Teitell writes: Be careful out there. Commentators believe the lawsuit to invalidate the SALT limitation will be unsuccessful. The IRS will deny claimed charitable deductions for what are, in effect, required tax payments—and impose interest and penalties.
February 22, 2019 at 02:45 PM
4 minute read
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 115-97, limits an individual's deduction under IRC §164 for the total amount of state and local taxes (SALT) paid during the calendar year to $10,000 ($5,000 for a married individual filing a separate return). State and local tax payments exceeding those amounts aren't deductible. This new limitation applies to taxable years 2018 through 2025.
State law workarounds. Responding to this new limitation, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland enacted laws allowing their taxpayers to make transfers to funds controlled by state or local governments, or other transferees specified by the state, in exchange for credits against the state or local taxes that taxpayers are required to pay.
These laws allow the states' taxpayers to characterize their transfers as fully deductible charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes, while using the same transfers to satisfy state and local tax liabilities.
Proposed regulations thwart state plans to work around the $10,000 limit on state and local tax deductions. REG-112176-18.
New York and the three other states sued to invalidate the $10,000 deductibility ceiling on state and local taxes. The actions seek declaratory and injunctive relief on a host of grounds including:
• The new cap effectively eviscerates the SALT deduction, overturning more than 150 years of precedent by drastically curtailing the deduction's scope. As the drafters of the Sixteenth Amendment and every subsequent Congress have understood, the SALT deduction is essential to prevent the federal tax power from interfering with the States' sovereign authority to make their own choices about whether and how much to invest in their own residents, businesses, infrastructure, and more.
• A SALT deduction has been a part of every federal income tax law since the first federal income tax was enacted in 1861.
• The new cap on the SALT deduction is unprecedented, unlawful, and will cause significant and disproportionate injury to the Plaintiff States and their residents.
• The new cap will significantly increase the amount of taxes residents in Plaintiff States will pay to the federal government.
• The new cap on the SALT deduction is likely to substantially decrease home values in the Plaintiff States, hurting both in-state homeowners and the Plaintiff States themselves.
Latest development. The federal government asks the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York to dismiss the four states' lawsuit on these grounds:
The States' complaint posits a radical theory—namely, that the Sixteenth Amendment, rather than expanding Congress's taxing power, severely cabined that power, granting states the right to limit federal taxation. Accepting these arguments would require the court to hold:
• First, that the text of the Sixteenth Amendment, without actually saying so, requires “a deduction for all or a significant portion of state and local taxes.”
• Second, that the Sixteenth Amendment allows states to increase their tax rates without limit, and the federal government must provide an unlimited corresponding deduction.
• Third, that generalized state sovereignty principles override Congress's constitutional taxation power. The complaint suggests that such principles prohibit any federal legislation that might make it more difficult for a state to “set [its] legislative agenda.”
• Fourth, that the spheres of operation of federal and state taxation must be “different and not conflicting.”
The States can point to no constitutional text supporting these theories, so they instead write a revisionist history about the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment.
At bottom, the States identify no constitutional provision supporting their theories.
The court need not reach the merits of their claims, however, because there are threshold jurisdictional issues barring this suit.
State of New York (and Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey) v. Department of Treasury, U.S. District Court, SDNY, Civil Action No. 18-???-6427
Be careful out there. Commentators believe the lawsuit to invalidate the SALT limitation will be unsuccessful. The IRS will deny claimed charitable deductions for what are, in effect, required tax payments—and impose interest and penalties.
Conrad Teitell is a principal at Cummings & Lockwood in Stamford, Conn.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
Trending Stories
- 1Memories of a Straight Shooter
- 2It Was a Wild Ride: Check Out the Top In-House Stories of 2024
- 3People in the News—Dec. 27, 2024—Stevens & Lee, Chartwell Law
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'It's Essential to Have a Clear Vision,' Says Matthew Carey of Marshall Gerstein
- 5A&O Shearman Corporate Partner Heads to Jones Day
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250