The Liberal A-SALT on the Trump Economic Boom
The entire working
population of America is enjoying the conservative, Trump tax-law changes and cuts
and is now keeping more of their own paycheck and money every week. Everyone is happy except the progressive big
government liberals who want more and more control over We the People
and our property, including our labors and our money.
So what did four
of the most liberal states do? While the Trump administration has been working hard
to make America great again, and to restore the dignity of the working man, the
liberals filed a lawsuit in Manhattan New York to try to stop him. This is actually great
news however, as through this filing, they have unintentionally exposed how the
liberal, high-tax states have been funding their big-government socialist-welfare
State programs on the backs of the more conservative and financially
responsible states.
So everyone can thank
the governors of the four, over-reaching liberal East coast States because they
are about to change American history, -- but thankfully, it’s not likely to change
in the way they have planned.
Here’s why:
1.
Four liberal (D) states (NY, NJ, CT
& MD) have sued the Trump administration to stop the new law from being
implemented, because implementing the elimination of the unlimited SALT
deduction, to comply with the new law, will disproportionately impact the
people of their states.
2.
The four states are selfishly
willing to sacrifice the nation’s economic boom that the tax cuts have launched,
to finance their liberal welfare programs, including the illegal immigrant welfare
programs and benefits they offer, and to register the unqualified
(non-citizens) to vote.
3.
Their sworn supporting documents indirectly
prove that the IRS has been unlawfully taxing and prosecuting an un-Constitutional
tax law for over 30 years.
4.
The four states lawsuit actually highlights how the high-tax states have abused federal
tax policy and law to enrich their state’s liberal socialist welfare bureaucracy
and programs, on the backs of the low-taxed, financially responsible and more conservative
states.
5.
The fours states have improperly
filed their lawsuit in a cherry-picked Manhattan court looking for victory,
when the Constitution requires such a case of national impact go directly to
the Supreme Court for resolution.
Here’s how it happened:
On July 17th,
2018 the four, progressively liberal states of New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut and Maryland filed suit in the Southern district court of New York
(Manhattan), in Civil Action No: 18-cv-6427 seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief to invalidate the new, uniform
$10,000 cap on the federal income
tax deduction for all “state and local
taxes” (hereinafter “SALT”).
They argue for a
nationwide injunction barring IRS implementation and enforcement of the new law
and its uniform deduction ($10,000
cap); - and for the restoration of the unlimited SALT deduction present in the
1986 IRC Section 1 – Tax imposed”,
rather than the uniform $10,000 cap
mandated in the new HR-1 tax law just enacted by Congress last December 22nd,
2017.
The legal
implications, under the U.S. Constitution, of this single legal action that has
been filed by these four states is so large that it has within it, the inherent
power to change the course of American history, and to potentially end the
improper internal taxation of the fruits
of labor of We the People by the
Infernal Revenue Service.
Of course, if the
case is not handled properly by the U.S. Attorney General and Department of
Justice, and the other 46 states of the United States who are not amongst the plaintiff states
(particularly the conservatively-oriented and/or constitutionally-minded
states), this legal action also has the potential to completely legally
disrupt, and ultimately completely destroy both the voice of We the American People
in legally electing our president, and the administration of President Donald
Trump.
So this is an
article that every conservative, or constitutionally-minded, individual and
state in the country should take a deep interest in, because it is literally
the future of America as a Republic, and as a sovereign nation, that is at issue in this one case.
However, before we
analyze and dissect this taxation Complaint
of the four states, let’s first examine the overall political tactics being
deployed and utilized by the liberal progressive states to oppose and interfere
with President Trump’s administration of the federal government, its
administrative policies, Executive
Orders, and now the new tax law (under HR-1).
The liberal
progressive political forces in this country learned in the legal actions filed
18 months ago against the Trump administration, opposing President Trump’s
proposed 90-day immigration travel-ban on travel by all persons from a certain
seven countries, where he believed
there were national security issues that existed between countries because of
the inability of the U.S government to rely on the travel documents and
information that were originating in these countries, where the local
governments had been seriously destabilized (or deposed) by terrorists and or revolutionaries
in those countries.
To oppose this 90
day travel-ban, the liberal progressive political states of California, Oregon
and Hawaii (or groups within those states) cherry-picked liberal courts in
those same states to file suit in, and argue in, in front of liberal judges, to
win from those cherry-picked liberal courts, nation-wide injunctions against
the Trump administration, preventing it from proceeding with their plans and policies
that were designed to secure the national security interests of America first,
ahead of the immigration interests and desires
of foreign persons, and apparently, the liberal states.
Now, it didn’t
matter that the U.S. Constitution clearly gives the federal government all power over foreign
affairs and matters, including foreign persons
in the U.S. through the naturalization
process, or, that the states all ceded
this power of governance over
foreign affairs to the federal government upon joining the union; - in order of
course, to present a single “face of the nation” to all foreign countries in
trade (and immigration), rather than present fifty different faces of fractured
law (under each state) for the foreign nations and persons to “play” against
one another, and “game” the 50 different
sets of law to get preferential treatment in one state as opposed to another; -
these lower district courts where the original challenges were argued, somehow
still managed to find that the plaintiff states had legal standing to interfere
in the U.S. immigration policy and they
issued nationwide injunctions stopping the Executive
Order and barring the 90-day travel ban.
Of course, these
absurd lower district court holdings and erroneous injunctions against the
Trump administration and the 90-day travel-ban were summarily upheld by the
ultra-liberal
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so it was approximately almost a year
and a half I believe, about 18 months, where the liberal pro-immigrant states
were improperly allowed by the cherry-picked lower courts to interfere with the
Trump administration’s implementation of the ordered policy change, made under
both Constitutional authority and authorizing law.
So we see, that by
being allowed to cherry-pick, and sue in, courts in their own states, the liberal states are able, if allowed, to
interfere with the administration of current policy, and law, to the extent
that they are able to disrupt the operation and
administration of the federal government for as much as two years.
Now, the success
of Donald Trump’s entire administration is almost entirely defined by, and hinged
upon, the economic boom that is occurring, and has been occurring since the
enactment of the new tax law under HR-1.
That is because corporations
seek favorable certainty in the law before committing to policy changes that
are actually meaningful to their operations, and that
is precisely and exactly what has occurred as a result of the tax reduction
enacted under the HR-1 legislation. It is specifically the corporate expansion,
with raises, bonuses, new hiring, new production, increasing sales, etc. that
is creating, and that will sustain, this Trump economic boom. It is all
occurring under the certainty provided by new HR-1 tax law – legally and
lawfully enacted by Congress.
However, if the
lower, liberal, progressive district court of Manhattan New York is allowed to
issue a nationwide injunction against the implementation of the new HR-1 tax
law (new lower rates, fewer brackets, and a $10,000 SALT deduction cap), that
would remove the corporate certainty about a limited and
substantially reduced tax liability, that has created the economic boom all
across America; - and replace it with what could only be immediate economic
corporate-uncertainty (concerning
the uncertain rate of tax and SALT deduction cap that will ultimately be upheld
by the Supreme Court), but across the two years of time it will take to
get to that high court, the uncertainty caused by the erroneous district court injunction would most probably DESTROY the current economic boom,
and leave President Trump more than a little vulnerable in the 2020 election.
Thus the
continuation of the current economic boom and expansion, and the continuation
of any restoration of either conservative political beliefs within, or a
constitutional operation of, the federal government in the United States of
America, becomes almost completely dependent upon how this single legal action
and case is handled, and initially resolved within the federal courts.
This is therefore
information, that every single conservative state, and Attorney General in the
conservative states, simply must be
aware of, and react to in the courts while
the action is pending.
The Constitution trumps this Liberal
Scheme
Ok, so now that we
understand the tactical strategy being deployed by the four liberal plaintiff
states and progressive political “forces that be”, - to interfere with and
try to block the successful administration of the government by President
Donald Trump by using lower-court ordered injunction to block the enforcement
of both policy and law by the Republican administration, let’s now examine the
nature and substance of the four states’ Complaint
in the New York district court.
First, we should
note that U.S. Constitution appears to have foreseen these types of litigation
events and situation, where a state (or multiple states), would try to
cherry-pick courts and judges in their own state, in order
for the state or states to be able to interfere with, or stop
completely, the central government from operating or administering to federal
law within that state (or all states).
That controlling clause of the U.S. Constitution, made applicable
here by the founding fathers’ foresight, is Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of
the United States Constitution, which plainly and clearly states:
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction”
By this provision of the Constitution of the United States
of America, the federal district courts are
entirely removed from any and all
exercisable jurisdiction over the
civil action that has been filed by the four plaintiff states, for lack of the required original jurisdiction of the district
court to both hear the action and or
entertain any arguments at all in
the matter, because the named plaintiff States of New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, and Maryland have filed their Complaint
in the wrong court, being a
district court of New York, instead of the Supreme Court of the United States,
as required by this clause of the
Constitution.
The liberal
progressive states must not be allowed any longer to interfere in the
administration of the federal government by suing in their own (federal)
district courts, and appealing to its own judges, in what can only be described
as a favorable forum for the state in
action designed to advance their own political philosophies (in place of law),
being in a court of their own state, with a district court judge who is a
citizen of that state and might be inclined to look favorably upon arguments
made by his own state government, against the federal government.
By placing the original jurisdiction over these types
of legal actions where a state is a party to the action, with only the Supreme Court, the
Constitution limits the ability of the 50 states to appeal to their own, for
judgment or relief from federal law or granted power.
Only the Supreme
Court is given that power at Law
through the plain and clear grant of original
jurisdiction that is given to that court, by this clause of the U.S.
Constitution (Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 2).
If the immigration
travel-ban suits filed two (2) years ago (and the sanctuary-city suits) had been handled properly by the Attorney
General (Jeff Sessions), those adverse district and circuit courts rulings would
never have been able to have been
made, as the courts should never have even
heard the causes of action that were filed by those states (and state
gov’t depts), and thus, they would not have been able to improperly interfere
for almost two years with the lawful administration of the immigration laws, Orders, and authorities of the Trump
administration, as they were able to do when the legal actions were not properly defended or argued by the apparently
impotent U.S. Department of Justice.
Ok, so the
plaintiff states sued in the wrong forum (court), because it (the New York
Southern district court in Manhattan) is without the constitutionally granted original jurisdiction necessary to hear
and adjudicate the states’ Complaints.
But beyond that,
what do the four states substantively argue, and support with their attached
evidentiary exhibits, in the current action and Complaint concerning the removal of the unlimited SALT deduction
from the 1986 IRC Section 1 - Tax imposed?
The four states
have submitted some 140 pages of Complaint
and empirical data as sworn supporting evidence, that is documented and
supported by sworn Affidavit statements of fact that have been made by certain
responsible economic officers of the four plaintiff states, that the four
states claim shows an unconstitutional prejudice against the four plaintiff states within the new HR-1 tax
legislation that is brought about by the elimination of the unlimited SALT
deduction therein mandated, and the replacement, newly adopted $10,000 cap on
said SALT deduction in all fifty states.
The four liberal
plaintiff states argue that an economic analysis of their data shows that the
four plaintiff states will be among the hardest hit states in implementing the
new HR-1 tax law, and that their states’ populations will absorb a greater
proportion of the economic “hit” (for various reasons all rooted in the
high-tax rates of the states themselves, and completely severed from the
federal tax as a causation of that
high tax-rate in the state), than the populations of the other 46 states.
The four liberal
plaintiff states do not assess in
their Complaint, or analyze in their argument pleadings, the end-result of
implementing the new tax law and SALT deduction rules across the fifty states,
they only plead the argued prejudicially
negative impact that will occur as a
result of each state’s people making the
transition necessary from the old law, to initially comply with the new cap
mandate. They (the four plaintiff
states) do not examine the end-result of complying with the new system that will result under the new law after that initial transition is completed
and made by every state, they only examine the effects of the transition upon themselves.
This of course is
a fatal error in the states’
argument, as it is the end-result and
resulting new operation under the new
rules under the new law, all across the fifty states, that the court is
required to test for constitutionality
after
the initial requirement to comply is obeyed by the fifty states and the
new system is in place; - the court does NOT
“test” the transitional compliance process and period that each state may or
may not undergo, to get itself into compliance with the requirements of the new
law.
So, to understand
why I say that the four plaintiff states have made a fatal error in their “thinking” and in their pleadings that are
made in this Complaint challenging
the elimination of the unlimited SALT deduction, it will be necessary to review
and understand the true constitutional historical foundation and application
of, and constitutional justification
for, the federal personal income tax.
Rather than argue
these points at Law, I will simply cite the Supreme Court’s clear history of
controlling precedent on the matter:
"The subject matter of taxation
open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power
of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts
and excises." Art. 1, § 8. If the tax is a direct one, it
shall be apportioned according
to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it
shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together,
these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403,
288 U. S. 405;
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1,
240 U. S. 12." Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937),
at 581
That
referenced clause of the U.S. Constitution plainly and clearly states:
Article I, Section 8, clause 1
Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises ...; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
through the United States.
And the Supreme Court has been
consistent in its rulings on the matter of income
tax, both before and after the adoption of the 16th Amendment:
“The inherent and
fundamental nature and character of a tax is that of a contribution to the
support of the government, levied upon the principle of equal and uniform
apportionment among the persons taxed, and any other exaction does not come
within the legal definition of a 'tax.'” Pollock
v. Farmer’s Loan &Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 599 (1895)
"Whether
the tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of
critical importance. If not that, it is an "impost" (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,
158
U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 622, 158 U. S. 625;
Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble, 7
Wall.
433, 74 U. S. 445), or a "duty" (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S.
546, 75 U. S. 547; Pollock v. Farmers'
Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 157 U.S. 570; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 46). A capitation or other "direct"
tax it certainly is not." Steward
Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581-2
“…By the previous ruling [Brushaber v Union Pacific R. Co.] it was
settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but
simply prohibited the
previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation
to which it inherently belonged
….” . Stanton
v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916).
"The [income] tax being an
excise, its imposition must conform
to the canon of uniformity. There has been no departure from this requirement.
According to the settled doctrine the uniformity exacted is geographical,
not intrinsic. Knowlton v. Moore, supra, p. 178 U. S. 83; Flint v.
Stone Tracy Co., supra, p. 220 U. S. 158; Billings v. United States,
232 U. S. 261, 232 U. S. 282; Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U. S. 605, 245 U.
S. 613; LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 256 U. S.
392; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 282 U. S. 117; Wright v. Vinton
Branch Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U. S. 440." Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301
U.S. 548 (1937), at 583
The tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place
where the subject of it is found. "Uniformity"
means all property belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike. It does
not signify an intrinsic, but simply a geographic, uniformity (Churchill & Tait v. Conception, 34 Phil.
969). Uniformity does not require the same treatment; it simply requires
reasonable basis for classification.
“There
is no safety in allowing the limitation to be adjusted except in strict
compliance with the mandates of the constitution, which require its taxation,
if imposed by direct taxes, to be apportioned among the states according
to their representation, and, if imposed by indirect taxes, to be uniform in operation and, so far as
practicable, in proportion to their property, equal upon all citizens.
Unless the rule of the constitution governs, a majority may fix the limitation
at such rate as will not include any of their own number.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 607 (1895)
So
the federal income tax is constitutionally authorized as an indirect tax under the enforceable taxing authorities
established by Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 and 18, where the uniformity limitation is the
constitutional limitation that applies to the tax. That uniformity
limitation on the taxing power is established in operational practice through a geographical
uniformity of the application of the tax, that results in an absolutely uniform
imposition, collection and enforcement of the tax, in each and every state.
“Geographical uniformity” means that as long as
the people in each state, within each tax-bracket, are treated the same (uniformly) by the law, as the people in
that same tax-bracket in every other state, then the constitutionally imposed uniformity limitation (on the indirect power to tax) is satisfied. This means that in order
for a tax, or tax law, to be deemed constitutional by the federal
courts, the people of each and every state must be treated by the tax and tax
law, in exactly the same way as the people in every other state (within each tax-bracket).
So
then, the only real legal question posed, that is legitimately raised by the
four plaintiff states in the Complaint in
the legal action they have filed in the New York district court, is whether or
not a flat $10,000 SALT deduction that applies in each and every state,
constitutes a geographically uniform application
of the Tax imposed in the real-world,
factual operational practices undertaken
by the federal government to enforce the tax?
The
answer of course is so obvious, it almost makes the question appear stupid, to
ask. Of course a flat $10,000 deduction (maximum), that is applicable to and
within each and every state, within each and every
tax-bracket, is both uniform and geographically uniform, in
each and every state; and therefore is constitutional.
So
the new law must almost be summarily upheld by the federal courts on the legal
grounds and constitutional basis that it does indeed satisfy the geographical uniformity requirement of
the uniformity limitation that
constitutionally applies, and controls in operation, the administration and enforcement of
the indirect taxing powers of Article
I, Section 8, where the power to tax income
arises and originates under the Constitution (not the 16th
Amendment).
So,
since the new (HR-1) tax law is
obviously uniform in operation, and
therefore constitutional, what is it then, that the four plaintiff states have actually documented with their evidence and empirical data,
showing and proving a lack of the
constitutionally required uniformity and
geographical uniformity in the
application of the new HR-1 tax law (being evidenced as being different in each
of the four plaintiff states)?
What
the four states have actually documented with their
data and sworn Affidavits, is the unconstitutionally non-geographically uniformity, and
favorable improper prejudice
(for the high-tax plaintiff states) that irrefutably exists within the
old 1986 IRC Section 1 – Tax imposed, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The
four plaintiff states are of course actually “complaining” about, and have
empirically documented the extent of, the loss
of that improper prejudicial favoritism that
exists in the old law that each of
the four plaintiff states will experience, and will lose in practice, as a result
of transitioning to the new uniform $10,000 SALT deduction
limitation in the new HR-1 tax law.
The
four plaintiff states have presented the data that irrefutably proves for the
entire nation that there is NO
constitutionally required uniformity or
geographical uniformity present in the imposition, administration,
collection, and enforcement of the old tax law (under the 1986 IRC § 1 – Tax imposed), which is now exposed by
these four states actions and sworn evidentiary data, as being completely unconstitutional, and
irrefutably
so.
So,
the new law must be sustained as a function of the erroneously argued basis for
the plaintiff states’ claims and Complaint
– i.e.: a uniform fixed SALT
deduction cap; which is constitutional; - and the old 1986 tax law is dangerously exposed. Thank you, NY, NJ, Maryland, and Connecticut for
unintentionally highlighting a constitutionally seditious problem that must be
remedied to the benefit of all fifty states, and We the People, to prevent the
on-going enforcement of an unconstitutional tax law (not geographically uniform)
that will continue to subsidize the liberal state operations for as long as it is allowed to exist or be enforced.
However,
if the Supreme court does not have to address the old tax law, the court will not do so, - in order
to avoid the problem that
results if it does, i.e.: the IRS
& DOJ can never go to court again under 1986 tax-law to enforce the
collection or payment of past-year taxes (1986 thru 2017) in any state in the
nation. They (the court) will simply
sustain the new HR-1 SALT cap under the geographical
uniformity Rule, and ignore the problem
exposed in the old law by the ruling, i.e.:
the old 1986 tax law is not constitutional
because it allows (through the unlimited SALT deduction) the various state legislatures to determine, instead
of the U.S. Congress, how much federal tax that state’s people will
actually pay to the U.S. Treasury.
Examining
California and Texas as examples
If
we examine the two states of California and Texas, under the old 1986 law, and
the legal effect on the actual rate of tax paid to the United States Treasury under
the unlimited SALT deduction that exists therein, we immediately see the
obvious constitutional problem, and the true source of the data that has been
brought forth by the four plaintiff states as the alleged evidence of the
unconstitutional prejudice alleged to
exist in the new law (or in transitioning to it), which evidence actually
documents the favorable prejudice that exists in the old law for the four plaintiff states,
and not any negative prejudice that exists in the new HR-1
tax law.
For
instance, the state of California had a 10% personal income tax rate. Texas had 0%.
So, when we apply the unlimited SALT deduction to two hypothetical taxpayers, one in each state, and both
hypothetically in the same 39% tax bracket, what happens?
Well
in California we deduct the 10% state tax from the 39% federal tax rate, to
arrive at an effective base-rate of federal taxation for this bracket of persons in California, of 29%.
In
Texas we deduct 0% and arrive at an effective base-rate of federal taxation for
this bracket of persons in Texas, of 39%, which is a full 10% higher than was calculated for
Californians in the same tax-bracket, which is NOT geographically uniform.
So,
what happened to the constitutionally required geographical uniformity in the old tax law? That constitutional
requirement is completely
destroyed by an
unlimited SALT deduction in the federal Tax
imposed of Section 1 of the 1986 IRC. How has it legitimately existed for 32 years?
Now
admittedly, both hypothetical person in
the two states, CA & TX, will
still get to also deduct their state property and sales taxes that were paid in
their state as well, but the
fundamental non-uniform differences created by the substantial variance of the differing state income tax rates, and
corresponding federal deduction amounts under an unlimited SALT, will never be overcome by those other,
smaller state taxes, which will only vary slightly from state to state, and
will not be sufficient to make up
the 13% base-rate differences in the tax-rates resultant in each state after the unlimited SALT state income
tax deduction is taken and included in the calculation of the effective rate of
federal taxation imposed in operational
practice.
In
fact, this fundamental difference in the tax rates between the high-tax liberal
and progressive states, and the rural lower-tax, conservative and
constitutionally-minded states, has allowed the liberal states to keep more of the federal tax dollars in
their own state, for their own legislatures to allocate and spend rather than the
U.S. Congress, effectively compelling the low-tax conservative states to subsidize the liberal states’ profligate
spending, and to shoulder a greater
share of the federal tax burden than
the high-tax states carry,
- and thus the conservative states are compelled to “carry the water” for
those liberal high-tax states, with respect to the funding of the operations of
the federal government, which burdens
are not shared uniformly or equally by the fifty states under an unlimited SALT
deduction, which results in a different effective rate of tax being paid by the
people of almost every single state in the nation, where the accumulative
amount of the state and local taxes are all
different, thus resulting in
different rates of federal tax that are paid over to the U.S. Treasury by the
people of each state in the union, completely destroying the
constitutionally required geographical
uniformity. These facts have all now
been irrefutably empirically documented by the data and sworn Affidavits that
have been submitted by the four plaintiff states in support of their misguided
lawsuit. Again, thank you NY, NJ,
Maryland and Connecticut.
So
the only real question left then, is “how do we manage to get the high Court to
address both legal questions, about both tax laws”, i.e.: the constitutionality of both the old 1986 IRC Sec. 1 tax law
with an unlimited SALT deduction (that is NOT
constitutional for lack of geographical uniformity in legal effect), and the new HR-1 law with the $10,000 SALT cap (that is
constitutional because it has restored the required geographical uniformity), instead of
addressing just one of those legal
questions, as posed and challenged within the four states filed Complaint ?
Well,
it is not just the four plaintiff states that should get to appear and argue
and have a “say” in the outcome of this legal action that has been filed by
just the four states. It is every state
in the nation, all 50 of them, that
should have a legal “say” in this action, and a Right as an affected state, to
participate in the action if desired, as an affected party, or to even
counter-sue in the action if it better serves the interests of a particular
states’ people.
And
in fact that is what we (as constitutional conservatives) need to make
happen. At least one of the low-tax
(zero income tax) states (TX, AK, NV, WA, WY, FL, SD, NH, etc.) need to file in
the legal action as affected parties to be joined to the action, opposing the four plaintiff
states’ claims that the new HR-1 tax law is unconstitutional (for alleged
lack of the required geographical uniformity); - and seeking a proper ruling from the court,
instead challenging the constitutionality
of the old 1986 IRC
Section 1 – “Tax imposed”, for
exactly the same reason (lack of geographical
uniformity amongst the 50 states with an unlimited SALT deduction), - as
documented by the sworn facts presented within the plaintiff’s empirical
evidentiary data, already on the evidentiary record of the district court in
the action.
In
this way the Supreme Court will be compelled to address the constitutionality
of both laws, instead of just one, and in upholding the constitutionality of the uniform
$10,000 SALT cap in the new law, it will have no other choice but to strike
down the arbitrary and capricious non-uniform application of the 1986 tax law,
which the four states have empirically documented is neither uniform nor geographically
uniform amongst the 50 states in neither its application nor its comparative legal effect upon each state.
The
Attorney Generals of the conservative zero or low-tax conservative states have
a rare legal opportunity here, to protect themselves from being taken advantage
of financially by other liberal states drowning in red ink and wrongfully
demanding subsidization of its profligate spending, and further, to lock the
IRS and the DOJ completely out of their
states over any federal back-tax
collection alleged owed, for the next 18 years (i.e.: for any federal income tax alleged owed from 1986 through
2017), because the 1986 IRC Section 1 is unconstitutional for lack of the constitutionally required uniformity and geographical
uniformity, which lack is
caused by the unlimited SALT deduction in the 1986 IRC Section 1 – Tax imposed, as empirically evidenced.
Thomas Freed
www.Tax-Freedom.com (540) 937-3098
www.IRSzoom.com (703) 899-7369
Tom@IRSzoom.com The American Tax Bible