Lawless In Seattle

Did you hear that Seattle has a new income tax?

Sort of. Eventually. But maybe not.

The tax rate is 2.25 percent and will tag you if you are (1) single and earn more than $250,000 per year or (2) married and earn more than $500,000.

This is big-bucks land, and we normally would not dwell on this except…

Washington state has no income tax.

Let us get this right: Seattle wants to have an income tax in a state that has no income tax. Washington state considered an income tax back in the 1930s, but the courts found it unconstitutional.

You or I would live within the Seattle city limits … why?

Surely there are nice suburbs we could call home. Heck, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos do not live in Seattle; they live in the suburbs.

There appear to be legal issues with this tax.

The state constitution, for example, requires taxes to be uniform within a class of property. The pro-tax side questions whether income is “property.”

The anti-tax side provides the Power Inc v Huntley case (1951), wherein the Washington Supreme Court stated:

It is no longer subject to question in this court that income is property.”

Must be something cryptic about the wording.

Then there is a law that bans Washington cities from taxing net income.

The pro-tax side argues that they are not taxing “net” income. No sir, they are taxing “adjusted” or “modified” or “found-under-the-cushions” income instead.

The anti-tax side says: seriously?

Then you have the third issue that Washington cities must have state authority to enact taxes.

The pro-tax side says it can do this under their Licenses and Permits authority.

RCW 35A.82.020

Licenses and permits—Excises for regulation.

A code city may exercise the authority authorized by general law for any class of city to license and revoke the same for cause, to regulate, make inspections and to impose excises for regulation or revenue in regard to all places and kinds of business, production, commerce, entertainment, exhibition, and upon all occupations, trades and professions and any other lawful activity: PROVIDED, That no license or permit to engage in any such activity or place shall be granted to any who shall not first comply with the general laws of the state.

No such license shall be granted to continue for longer than a period of one year from the date thereof and no license or excise shall be required where the same shall have been preempted by the state, nor where exempted by the state, including, but not limited to, the provisions of RCW 36.71.090 and chapter 73.04 RCW relating to veterans.

I am not making this up, folks.

Here is the mayor:

This legislation will face a legal challenge.”

And green is a color.

But let me tell you something: we welcome that legal challenge. We welcome that fight.”

Then why pick a fight, Floyd?

… lowering the property tax burden …, addressing the homelessness crisis; providing affordable housing, education and transit; … creating green jobs … meeting carbon reduction goals.”

Got it: verbigeration, the new college major. It will get you to that $15 minimum wage. At least until those jobs go away because they are too expensive.

Speaking of expense: who is bankrolling this issue while it is decided in court? Has the city banked so much money that a guaranteed legal battle is worth it?

If we need to pack the courts, will you be there with me?” thundered a councilperson.

Pack the courts? Should we bring bats too?  

The pro-tax side wants to be sued, hoping that a judge will legislate from the bench.

Needless to say, the anti-tax side is resisting, with calls for “civil disobedience.”

With exhortations not to file returns.

The state chair of the Republican party is encouraging

“… non-compliance, non-violent and non-paying”

Sounds almost Gandhi-esque.

It appears that neither side has any intention to observe – heck, even acknowledge – any pretense of law.

I am at a loss to see how this is good for anybody.

Now You Say You're Leaving California

I have stumbled into our next story of outrageous state tax behavior.

I was skimming (quickly, trust me) the Supreme Court decision in Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt. It involves a resident of Nevada who sued California. California invoked sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine arising from the era of royalty and asserting that the king can do no wrong and is therefore immune from legal action.

Handy, if you are the king  … or any of California’s countless government agencies.

This case goes back a long way. Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada in the early 1990s. More specifically, he said he moved in September, 1991. California says he moved in April, 1992.

COMMENT: Sounds like a “poe-tae-toe” versus “poe-taw-toe” moment, on first impression.

California said this meant he owed the state $10 million in taxes, interest and penalties from patent income.

            COMMENT: Of course.

Problem is that the California Franchise Tax Board took some … questionable steps in developing their case against Hyatt:

·        They went through his mail

·        They rifled through his garbage

·        They contacted third parties, including estranged family and people who did not have his best interests at heart

He brought suit … in Nevada courts. There was a previous Supreme Court decision (Nevada v Hall) that allowed a private citizen to bring legal action against a second state, without the second state's consent.

The jury verdict was almost $500 million in damages and fees.

Then California appealed, arguing that Nevada's law limited damages in similar suits against its own agencies to $50,000.  

California got the Nevada Supreme Court to reduce the verdict to $1 million. The Court reasoned that California went a bit further than Nevada would allow, so the $50,000 cap did not apply.

COMMENT: Folks, we need our own state. We could do whatever we want and then hide behind sovereign immunity, hakuna matata or whatever other multi-syllabic nonsense springs to mind.

California was still not happy, arguing that Nevada was exhibiting a “policy of hostility.”      

California appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution applied. The Supreme Court agreed, using words such as "comity" to reduce the damages to $50,000.

My thoughts?

I allow that there may have been a legitimate disagreement at the very beginning of this whole matter. Let’s say that you move most, but not all, of your possessions to another state. You leave some furniture there, as the realtor said that it would help to show and sell the house. You then have a California tell you that you had not really moved until the last chair and framed art had left the state. What are you going to do: sue? You are not moving back to California just to sue. That means that you are suing from another state and California is going to invoke the doctrine of the king’s pantaloons or whatever.

Still, doesn’t it feel … wrong … to have California going through your mail and trash, peering through your windows and contacting estranged relatives? This is behavior beyond the pale. We are not talking about homeland security, where some argument might possibly be made to excuse the king’s overreach. 

We are only talking about taxes.

TomatoCare And The Supreme Court

Let’s play make believe.

Late on a dark and stormy Saturday night, the Congressional Spartans - urged on by Poppa John's and the National Tomato Growers Association – passed a sweeping vegetable care bill by a vote of 220-215.

The bill went to the Senate, where its fate was sadly in doubt. The fearless majority leader Harry Leonidas negotiated agreements with several recalcitrant senators, including the slabjacking of New Orleans, an ongoing automatic bid for the Nebraska Cornhuskers to the college Bowl Championship Series and the relocation of Vermont to somewhere between North Carolina and Florida. After passage, the bill was signed by the president while on the back nine at Porcupine Creek in Rancho Mirage, California.

As a consequence of this visionary act, Americans now had access to affordable tomatoes, thanks to market reforms and consumer protections put into place by this law. The law had also begun to curb rising tomato prices across the system by cracking down on waste and fraud and creating powerful incentives for grocery chains to spend their resources more wisely. Americans were now protected from some of the worst industry abuses like out-of-season shortages that could cut off tomato supply when people needed them the most.

California, Vermont and Massachusetts established state exchanges to provide tomato subsidies to individuals whose household income levels were below the threshold triggering the maximum federal individual income tax rate (presently 39.6 percent). The remaining states had refused to establish their own exchanges, prompting the federal government to intervene. The Tax Exempt Organization Division at the IRS, recognized for their expertise in technology integration, data development and retention, was tasked to oversee the installation of federal exchanges in those backwater baronies. IRS Commissioner Koskinen stated that this would require a reallocation of existing budgetary funding and – as a consequence - the IRS would not be collecting taxes from anyone in the Central time zone during the forthcoming year.

The 54 states that did not establish their own exchanges filed a lawsuit (Bling v Ne’er-Do-Well) challenging a key part of the TomatoCare law, which read as follows:

The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any vegetable coverage amount is the amount equal to the lesser of the greater…”

These benighted states pointed out that, botanically, a tomato was a fruit. A fruit was defined as a seed-bearing vessel developed from the ovary of a flowering plant. A vegetable, on the other hand, was any other part of the plant. By this standard, seedy growth such as bananas, apples and, yes, tomatoes, were all fruits.

There was great fear upon the land when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

Depending upon how the Supreme Court decided, there might be no tomato subsidies because tomatoes were not vegetables, a result clearly, unambiguously and irretrievably-beyond-dispute not the intent of Congress on that dark, hot, stormy, wintery Saturday night as they debated the merits of quitclaiming California to Mexico.

The case began under great susurration. The plaintiffs (the 54 moon landings) read into evidence definitions of the words “fruit” and “vegetables” from Webster’s Dictionary, Worcester’s Dictionary, the Imperial Dictionary and Snoop Dogg’s album “Paid tha Cost to Be da Bo$$.”

The Court acknowledged that the words “fruit” and “vegetable” were indeed words in the English language. As such, the Court was bound to take judicial notice, as it did in regard to all words in its own tongue, especially “oocephalus” and “bumfuzzle.” The Court agreed that a dictionary could be admitted in Court only as an aid to the memory and understanding of the Court and not as evidence of the meaning of words.

The Court went on:

Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of the vine. But in the common language of the 202 area code, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens and, whether eaten cooked, steamed, boiled, roasted or raw, are like potatoes, carrots, turnips and cauliflower, usually served at dinner with, or after, the soup, fish, fowl or beef which constitutes the principal part of the repast.”

The Court decided:

            But it is not served, like fruits generally, as a dessert.”

With that, the Court decided that tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit. The challenge to TomatoCare was courageously halted, and the liberal wing of the Court – in a show of their fierce independence and tenacity of intellect – posed for a selfie and went to Georgetown to get matching tattoos.

Thus ends our make believe.

There was no TomatoCare law, of course, but there WAS an actual Supreme Court decision concerning tomatoes. Oh, you didn’t know?

Back in the 1880s the Port of New York was taxing tomatoes as vegetables. The Nix family, which imported tons of tomatoes, sued. They thought they had the law – and common sense – on their side. After all, science said that tomatoes were fruit. The only party who disagreed was the Collector of the Port of New York, hardly an objective juror.

The tax law in question was The Tariff of 1883, a historical curiosity now long gone, and the case was Nix v Hedden. 

And that is how we came to think of tomatoes as vegetables.

Brilliant legal minds, right?

Has Maryland Been Caught Reaching Into The Tax Cookie Jar?

There are several states that impose a county tax in addition to a state income tax. Maryland is one of those states, and it has attracted attention to itself with the Maryland v Wynne. This case will soon go before the Supreme Court, which will decide whether Maryland has run afoul of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

That sounds esoteric.

It is not that bad, though, as long as we stay out of the weeds.

Let’s start this tax tale with an S corporation shareholder. His name shall be Clark. You may remember that “S” corporations do not pay tax (except in rare circumstances). Instead the corporation “passes through” its income to its shareholders, who in turn report their proportionate share of the corporate income on their individual tax returns.

Let’s say that Clark and his wife live in Maryland.

Let’s say that the S corporation does business both inside and outside Maryland. This means that Clark gets to pay income tax to all the states where the S corporation does business. This happens all the time, much to the chagrin of the tax professional who gets to prepare the paperwork.

Clark's corporation does business in North Carolina,. Clark pays tax to North Carolina (remember: the shareholder pays the income tax for an S corporation). Clark then takes a tax credit on his Maryland income tax for the taxes paid North Carolina. As long as North Carolina is not more expensive than Maryland, there is no-harm-no-foul, except for the professional fees to sort all this out.

And there we encounter the rub.

You see, Maryland divides its tax between a “state” tax and a “county” tax. And it makes a difference.

Enter Brian and Karen Wynne (the Wynnes). They are shareholders in Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., an S corporation that files returns in 39 states. They themselves live in Howard County, Maryland. When they filed their 2006 Maryland tax return, they claimed taxes that they paid the other 38 states as a credit against their Maryland tax.

And the Maryland State Comptroller changed their numbers and sent them a bill. This lead to Appeals, then Maryland Tax Court, followed by the Circuit Court and – now - the Supreme Court.

The Comptroller’s argument? The Wynnes could not claim a credit for taxes paid other states against the county portion of the Maryland tax. Maryland changed its law in 1975, which was like … a really, really long time ago. Why are we even going there? How can one reasonably offset a state tax against a county tax?

I have to disagree.

Take two people living in Maryland. Have one invest in an S corporation that does all its business inside Maryland. Have the other invest in an S that does all its business in Maine. Unless the other state’s income tax rate is less that the Maryland state income tax rate, the first investor will pay less tax than the second investor. Tell me, how is that fair? Is the state not burdening interstate commerce by taxing the second investor (who invested outside Maryland) more than the first (who invested exclusively within Maryland)? And there you have the core of the challenge under the Commerce Clause.

Let’s use some numbers to make this concrete.

Say that the S corporation income allocable to Maine is $1,000,000. 

(1) The top Maine income tax is 7.95%, so let’s say the Maine income tax will be $79,500.

(2) The top Maryland state income tax rate is 5.75%, so the state income tax will be $57,500.

(3) The Maryland county tax rate is 3.2%, so the county income tax will be $32,000.

(4) This makes the total tax to Maryland $89,500. This exceeds the Maine tax by $10,000.

One offsets the $79,500 paid Maine against the $89,500 otherwise paid Maryland, and it all works out, right?

This is where you get hosed. According to Maryland, you cannot take the excess $22,000 (that is, $79,500 – 57,500) and claim it against the county tax. After all, it is a …. county tax. It does not make sense to offset Maine’s state tax against Maryland’s county tax.

Uhhh, yes it does.

Let us play games with this, shall we? I live in Kentucky, for example. Kentucky has 120 counties. Only Texas and Georgia have more counties, and I wonder why anybody would want more. I understand this goes back to rural times, when travel was more arduous. Nowadays it doesn't make much sense. How much money is wasted on duplication of facilities, county commissions, staff and services that accompanies all these counties?

Let’s say that Frankfort finds itself in a financial bind. Some hotshot realizes that disallowing a resident credit to Kentuckians with income outside the state would help to bridge that financial bind. Said hotshot proposes to carve the Kentucky state income tax into two parts: the state part and the county part. When the county part arrives, Frankfort will just pass it along to the appropriate county. Considering that Frankfort is shuttling monies to the counties already, all one has done is rearrange the furniture.

Except that Frankfort now keeps more money by disallowing a resident credit against all those county taxes. After all, it does not make sense to allow a state tax credit against county tax, right? Pay no attention that Frankfort itself would have created the distinction between state and county income tax. Why that was ... a really, really long time ago. Why are we even going there?

Could Maryland possibly, just possibly, be cynical enough to be playing out my scenario?

I’ll bet you a box of donuts that they are.

So Maryland v Wynne is before the Supreme Court, which will review whether Maryland has violated the “dormant” Commerce Clause. The Maryland Association of Counties has joined in (I will let you guess on which side), and the case has attracted considerable attention from tax practitioners and government policy wonks. There is, for example, some interesting tension in there between the Due Process and Commerce Clauses, for those who follow such things.

The case is scheduled for hearing the second week of November.

The Washington Post On Income Taxes In 1914

"Congress went well toward the limits of its constitutional functions, in the estimation of many good lawyers, in the enactment of this law which grants inquisitorial powers that in the hands of careless officials could prove a menace to the country."

COMMENT: They were right.