| 
		U.S. tax bill may face lawsuits with long 
		odds but political payoffs 
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [December 21, 2017] 
		By Jan Wolfe 
 (Reuters) - Democratic-leaning states may 
		take legal action to challenge the cap on deductions of state and local 
		taxes under the sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code, and even though 
		such lawsuits would face long odds they could help galvanize Democrats 
		for next year's mid-term election.
 
 The U.S. tax bill, passed by Republicans in Congress on Wednesday, 
		limits deductions of state and local income and property taxes, known as 
		SALT, to $10,000.
 
 The provision hits hardest Democratic-leaning states with high incomes, 
		high property values and high taxes, like New York, New Jersey and 
		California.
 
 Law professors said legal challenges would likely rest on arguing that 
		the provision interferes with the protection of states' rights under the 
		U.S. Constitution.
 
 Some political strategists see a win for Democrats regardless of how 
		courts ultimately rule, saying that lawsuits could be used to keep the 
		issue front and center for voters already largely disenchanted with the 
		Republican party.
 
 "It’s a no-brainer for them to do this," said Democratic political 
		consultant Phil Singer. "Failing to aggressively pursue a remedy would 
		be political malpractice."
 
 New Jersey Governor-elect Phil Murphy said during an appearance on CNBC 
		on Wednesday that "everything is on the table" for New Jersey to oppose 
		the bill, including challenging its "legality and constitutionality."
 
 The governors of California and New York, Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo, 
		have both previously said they were exploring legal challenges to SALT 
		deduction limits. Their offices did not return requests for comment on 
		Wednesday.
 
		
		 
		Since President Donald Trump took office, blue states have aggressively 
		used the courts to attempt to block the president's agenda, suing over 
		his proposed travel ban, environmental policies and other measures.
 William O'Reilly, a conservative political consultant in New York, said 
		the SALT deduction issue would likely add to Republicans' "suburbia 
		problem" among college-educated voters ahead of the 2018 midterm 
		elections.
 
 "They already had one because of this president’s style," O'Reilly said.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            Darien Shanske, a tax law professor at the University of California 
			Davis School of Law, said the governors would probably argue that 
			restricting the SALT deduction, which dates back to the introduction 
			of the federal income tax in 1862, violates the U.S. Constitution's 
			10th Amendment that protects states' rights. 
            Shanske and other tax experts said the federalism argument would 
			need to overcome the U.S. Supreme Court's historically broad 
			interpretations of Congress' 16th Amendment power to impose taxes. 
            
			 
			"As a general matter, nothing prevents the federal government from 
			changing the SALT deduction," said David Gamage, a professor of tax 
			law at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law.
 In a frequently cited 1934 decision, the Supreme Court called tax 
			deductions a "legislative grace" rather than a right, and said 
			Congress has broad leeway to abolish them. The court reiterated this 
			view in a 1988 decision allowing Congress to remove a federal tax 
			exemption for interest on some state and local bonds.
 
 Kirk Stark, a professor of tax law at the University of California, 
			Los Angeles School of Law, said there is a slight possibility that a 
			federalism argument against limiting the SALT deduction could gain 
			traction.
 
 "Courts create new law all the time," he said, noting that decisions 
			on matters this sweeping tend to become political.
 
 But some legal experts noted that the state's rights argument is 
			more typically a conservative position. Using it to challenge the 
			SALT provision could be a move that Democratic governors come to 
			regret in the future, said Daniel Hemel, a professor at the 
			University of Chicago Law School.
 
 "The progressive agenda depends on the federal government being able 
			to raise revenue and the Supreme Court not getting in the way of 
			that," Hemel said.
 
 (Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Anthony Lin and Leslie Adler)
 
		[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
			reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |