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.
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
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.
www.Tax-Freedom.com (540) 937-3098
www.IRSzoom.com (703) 899-7369
Tom@IRSzoom.com The American Tax Bible