Daily Tax Report: State provides authoritative coverage of state and local tax developments across the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, tracking legislative and regulatory updates,...
The city of Seattle Nov. 17 defended its new municipal income tax on high-earners as the Washington Superior Court heard from several parties arguing that the regime should be struck.
At issue is a Seattle ordinance passed in July imposing a 2.25 percent tax on the “total income” of single filers making more than $250,000 and joint filers making more than $500,000 ( Kunath v. Seattle, Wash. Super. Ct., No. 17-2-18848-4, Oral arguments on cross motions for summary judgment 11/17/17 ).
But the stakes extend beyond Seattle with progressives aligned with the city’s elected leaders seeking the Washington Supreme Court’s buy-in on the proposition that taxing income in Washington—one of seven states without a personal income tax—is constitutional and that cities aren’t prohibited by statute from doing so. Many expect the case ultimately will move to the state Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs contend that cities can only tax with explicit legislative authority, which they say hasn’t been granted, and that a 1984 statute specifically prohibits cities from levying the tax.
But another argument—one the plaintiffs’ case is designed to avoid because an adverse ruling by the state Supreme Court could open the door to an income tax around Washington—is whether precedent stretching back to the 1930s effectively barring a progressive income tax is still good law or should be overturned. The justices have held that Amendment 14 to the state constitution means taxes must be uniformly levied within a class of property—including income. If that reading ultimately stands, it would preclude Seattle from imposing a tax that kicks in at the $250,000 threshold.
Superior Court Judge John R. Ruhl said he would rule before Thanksgiving.
Defending the tax on behalf of Seattle, Paul J. Lawrence, of the Seattle firm Pacifica Law Group, spoke of the challenge faced by the City Council in finding revenue in an economically booming community where blue-collar and middle-income residents are getting hammered by the high cost of living.
“The City Council also recognized that Washington state is perhaps the most regressive state when it comes to taxation in the nation,” Lawrence told the court. “The tax burden falls most heavily on the poorest people in the community.”
The ordinance, which levies the tax on “total income” reported to the Internal Revenue Service, chose to rely on IRS Form 1040, Line 22, Lawrence said. And the city derives its authority from a broad legislative grant to tax, including excise taxes and for “local purposes.”
Opposing the income tax was a team of attorneys that includes a former Washington attorney general. Attorneys with the libertarian-leaning organizations Freedom Foundation and Pacific Legal Foundation also argued against the tax for plaintiffs in the four separate lawsuits consolidated in the case.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Scott M. Edwards of Lane Powell’s Seattle office contended that the tax is imposed not on total income, but on net income, which is expressly prohibited by state statute, relying on RCW 36.65.030, which says that a city “shall not levy a tax on net income.”
“There are only two types of income, gross income or net income,” Edwards told the court. “Every one of the lines that is a component part of line 22 is a net number.”
“The city has no statutory authority to impose an income tax,” Edwards told the court. “Their authority is limited to excise taxes and an income tax is not an excise tax. Not only do they not have the authority they need to impose the tax, they are expressly prohibited. This is a tax on net income. There is no such creature as total income. It’s either gross or net. This is net.”
Joining Seattle in defending the ordinance was the union-supported Economic Opportunity Institute, which promotes a broad progressive agenda including to “pass an income tax in one or more Washington cities to fund local/community investments as a step toward fair and ample state revenue.” Attorney Knoll Lowney, of the Seattle firm Smith & Lowney, rose for the Economic Opportunity Institute to argue that the statute doesn’t apply because “the city’s tax is not a tax on net income.” He added that “it’s an excise tax, not a property tax” to reinforce the contention that the city has the statutory authority to impose it.
Former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna—of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in Seattle—argued that settled Supreme Court precedent should be left intact with regard to its holdings that taxes must be uniform within a class of property and that income is property. “On this concept that the city’s counsel stated that income is earned, not owned, that’s not for the city to decide.” McKenna said. “It’s not even for this court to decide. It’s for the Supreme Court to decide.”
“An income tax in this state is definitely a property tax,” McKenna said. “Repeatedly the “Supreme Court has referred back to constitutional language put into place by Amendment 14 to find that income is property and has to be taxed uniformly.”
But Lawrence said the state Supreme Court rulings relied heavily on case law that has since been overturned. “And the Supreme Court also relied on the erroneous assumption that the majority of the courts at the time of its ruling in the 1930s considered income as property for tax purposes. That was not true then and it’s certainly not true now where an overwhelming majority of state courts and federal courts have not treated income as property for tax purposes.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Paul Shukovsky in Seattle at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Cheryl Saenz at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2017 Tax Management Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)