The PI.com—which has been obsessing over Initiative 1098, the high-earners’ income tax—has an interview today with prominent Seattle attorney Hugh Spitzer, who strongly disagrees with former state supreme court justice Phil Talmadge’s assessment that the initiative is unconstitutional. (Talmadge argued yesterday that the tax was unconstitutional because, in his opinion, income constitutes property, and the state constitution places limits on property tax rates.)
However, Spitzer argues today that income isn’t property, calling that an “antiquated view” that only two states, including Washington, still have on the books.
“It’s a very isolated view of what income is,” Spitzer told the PI. “Most courts view income as an asset only once you have received it and are holding it. But they don’t view income flowing into you as property for state tax purposes.” Spitzer notes that the case Talmadge referred to in his opinion was from 1933.
“Fundamentally, the cases they relied on in 1933 all tied back to three United States Supreme Court cases which have been reversed or, in one case, wiped out by a U.S. Constitutional amendment. The background law no longer exists.”
Read the PI’s whole interview with Spitzer here.
