Reduced deductions for out-of-state businesses and state courts
petition this week
January 15, 2022
This week, we focused on asking the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether the cap on state and local tax deductions on the $10,000 federal income return mandated by the 2017 law violates the Constitution by enforcing state tax policy, and whether states Courts may exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state businesses based on their registration as foreign corporations.
2017 Federal Tax Deduction Cap for State and Local Taxes
New York v Yellen Addresses the constitutional distribution of taxing powers between federal and state governments. In 2017, Congress passed a tax law that allows taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 in state and local taxes from their federal income tax. Previously, taxpayers could deduct all or nearly all of their state and local taxes—in 2015, 3.3 million New Yorkers itemized their deductions on their federal tax returns, and the average state and local tax deduction they claimed was $21,943 . Then-President Donald Trump described the 2017 law as an “incentive” for taxpayers to “say, hey, make sure your politicians are doing a good job running your country.” New York, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey sued, arguing that the new law violated the Constitution — specifically, Article 1, Section 8, and tenth and 16th Amendment – because it interferes with the sovereign taxing authorities of the states by unduly forcing them to change their sovereign tax policies and depriving them of their equal sovereignty.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the states’ claims, ruling that the negative economic impact of the $10,000 cap was not severe enough to impermissibly force states to change their policies. The district court also ruled that a flat dollar cap on deductions is not illegal.U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirm, concluded that Congress even had the power to eliminate the deduction. In their petition, states insist the 2017 law is different from 150 years of history and introduces a new question about federal tax powers.
General jurisdiction of state courts over out-of-state businesses
exist Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. McCall, a tire manufacturer denied Georgia court jurisdiction based on its compliance with Georgia’s foreign company registration statutes. Florida resident Tyrance McCall sued Ohio-based Delaware company Cooper after a Florida accident in 2016. Tyrance Cooper’s Georgia activities are not related to McCall’s claims against Cooper, which means Georgia Court lacks ‘specific jurisdiction’ over Cooper (jurisdiction issue from last semester) Ford Motor Company v. Eighth District Court of Montana). Instead, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld “general jurisdiction” over Cooper on the grounds that Cooper, by registering as a foreign corporation in Georgia, agreed to sue in Georgia as a condition of doing business in the state.Although the Georgia Supreme Court recognized Recent case law The Supreme Court held that the company consented to general jurisdiction in the state where it was incorporated (here Delaware) and had its headquarters (here Ohio), and the court ruled that the Supreme Court did not formally overturn earlier precedent supporting the theory The law that the registration supports general jurisdiction.
these and other petition this week as follows:
Thacker v United States
problem: Whether the District Court may consider the 2018 18 USC § 924(c) In determining whether the defendant has demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a reduced sentence 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
martin v johnson
problem: Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit violate Section 2254(d) The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 and the Supreme Court Sexton v. Bodero, Cullen v Pinholst, and Harrington v Richter When it considered and based its final decision, defendant Alonzo Cortez Johnson never made an argument for a direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. McCall
problem: Does the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment allow a state to assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation for claims unrelated or related to any contact between the corporation and the court state on the grounds that the corporation’s conduct in that state Registration of a business is deemed consent to the general jurisdiction of the state.
Stirling v Stokes
problem: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit violated the fundamental principles of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Strickland v. Washington When it failed to re-weigh the entirety of the evidence in its bias analysis in the Sammy Stokes habeas corpus action to determine whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome; (2) when the trial lawyers had a reasonable strategic justification Does the Fourth Circuit erroneously grant relief to invalid trial attorney assistance claims for breach of contract invalidated trial attorney assistance claims when defenses and affiliate attorneys have sound strategic reasons not to act; (3) Or, should the case continue pending the outcome? Sheehan v Ramirez, 8 December 2021 debate.
New York v Yellen
problem: Does Congress impose a $10,000 cap on the deduction of state and local property and income taxes from federal taxable income in violation of Article I, Article 8 and the 10th and 16th Amendments to the US Constitution.