introducing the lawsuit, “This cap is unconstitutional — going well beyond settled limits on federal power to impose an income tax, while deliberately targeting New York and similar states in an attempt to coerce us into changing our fiscal policies and the vital programs they support."
However, Judge Oetken found that the states did not prove that the SALT cap was unconstitutional. He noted that “[t]he States are correct that the SALT cap is in some ways unprecedented” since “the availability of an uncapped deduction for state income and property taxes has been a mainstay of the federal income tax since that tax’s earliest inception.” But novelty isn’t fatal - at least not in the context of constitutional law.
In answer to the states’ coercion arguments, Judge Oetken wrote, “As an initial matter, this Court declines to speculate on Congress’s motives in passing the SALT cap.” However, he notes that even assuming that the states are right, “an otherwise valid federal law does not offend the Constitution simply because it seeks to affect state policies.
Judge Oetken did, however, keep at least one door open for taxpayers. While he dismissed the states’ assertion that this was an assault on their sovereign interest, he also made it clear that “the States have disclaimed any intent to invoke the rights of their citizens.
...and I thought this article was all about SALT being in Caps, rather than lower case salt!
The great SenSchumer debacle is in the news again. He had the votes to trade making middle class tax cuts permanent for SALT. Saying NO to negotiation was his idea. Democrats are not a help.