stealth-150x150-9212428Governor Cuomo’s budget proposal includes more than $1.5 billion in automatic state personal income tax hikes, affecting many of the same people who have the most to lose from the new federal limits on state and local tax (SALT) deductions.

As first noted here yesterday, the 2018-19 Executive Budget inexplicably does not include bill language decoupling the relevant section of the state personal income tax (PIT) law from the new federal tax code’s curtailment of itemized deductions, including the $10,000 combined cap on state and local tax deductions.

For most taxpayers, the impact of those changes will be offset on the federal level by a near doubling of the federal standard deduction, cuts in tax rates, a narrowing of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and an expansion of the child credit. But again, those cuts affect only federal tax liability.

New York law now allows state residents to itemize deductions on their state PIT returns if they also itemize on their federal returns. They are allowed to claim the same deductions in the same amounts listed on their federal Schedule A forms—with exceptions, most notably for state and local income taxes. The law also allows a larger standard deduction for single filers who are eligible for a federal personal tax exemption, meaning they can’t be claimed as a dependent by someone else—but the new federal law has eliminated all personal exemptions.

Allowing residents to continue claiming the same itemized deductions allowed by the previous federal tax law, and breaking the link to federal dependent exemptions, would have no impact on state revenues. But because the state tax law incorporates references to the federal code, leaving it unchanged would raise state PIT revenues by a net $1.54 billion a year, according to a study of federal tax conformance issues released yesterday by the state Department of Taxation and Finance.

The potential PIT increases include the following (with page references relating to where the estimates can be found in the study):

  • $44 million in added taxes from residents who will find it more beneficial to use the federal standard deduction, and thus will not be allowed to itemize on their state returns (p. 16);
  • $281 million in added taxes related to the loss of miscellaneous deductions—which include, ironically enough, a deduction for union dues that the governor pushed through with great fanfare less than a year ago (p. 24);
  • $400 million in added taxes from residents who can no longer deduct their local property taxes. This will mainly affect affluent and high-income owners of heavily taxed homes—the downstate suburbanites who are losing the most in federal SALT deductions (p. 21); and
  • $840 million in higher taxes on 5.2 million single filers who, due to a technical quirk in the linkage between federal and state law, would lose more than half of their state standard deduction (p. 17).*

Offsetting these increases will be taxpayer savings (i.e., a decrease of state revenues) of $25 million due to the federal law’s temporary increase in deductions for extraordinary medical expenses. This brings the net total impact to $1.54 billion. Because these changes affect the 2018 tax year, on which final returns are filed in April 2019, they do not affect revenues until the state’s 2019-20 fiscal year—i.e., the year after next.

A small step not taken

As explained here yesterday, decoupling from the federal deduction changes could be accomplished simply by inserting reference to tax year 2017 into the existing Section 615 of Article 22 of the Tax Law, and by modifying the same section in a way that allows New York residents to itemize on the state level even if they don’t itemize on the federal level. This would require the filing of an added tax form like the current federal Schedule A, but taxpayers keeping their deductions would probably consider it a small price to pay.

The potential reduction in standard deduction for single filers can be prevented by eliminating the words in current state law linking this part of the state code to the (for now) repealed federal dependent exemption.

The governor’s Division of the Budget (DOB) has a long-standing policy of basing its financial plan revenue projections on whatever is written into current law, combined with an assumption that the governor’s proposed changes are adopted. Therefore, unless that policy has changed—and there is nothing in the Executive Budget narrative to suggest it—then the governor’s $53.9 billion PIT projection for 2019-20 is, indeed, effectively assuming a $1.5 billion PIT hike effective in tax year 2018.

The acknowledged tax and fee increases in the governor’s proposed budget come to $1 billion for fiscal 2018-19, growing to $1.4 billion for 2019-20. But counting the PIT revenue impacts, a more accurate count of tax and fee hikes for 2019-20 is closer to $3 billion.

Bottom line

After weeks of attacking the cap on SALT as “devastating” and “an economic missile” aimed at New York, the governor’s budget aims a very similar missile at his own taxpayers. And again, those most affected will be the same group that is likely to be most affected by the SALT deduction cap.

As noted above, the loss of federal deductions will be more than offset by an array of tax cuts. But Cuomo has not yet proposed any similar offsetting changes to the state tax code. To the contrary: the sole federal tax conformance provision included in his budget bills will decouple the state from the federal child credit change, as a way of assuring that New York families with children don’t collect another $500 million in tax savings as a result of that federal change.

For now, the assumed automatic PIT hikes hold that year’s projected budget gap to $2.8 billion (or just $127 million assuming spending is held to 2 percent), rather than $4.3 billion (or $1.6 billion assuming 2 percent spending hike).

But there’s a ready alternative: to start with, he can free up $1.3 billion in 2019-20 by cancelling the final, 2019 phase of the state Property Tax Relief Credit, which goes to many of the same people. The credit is due to expire after next year in any event. Surely the loss of this temporary, check-in-the-mailbox tax gimmick would be a small price to pay for “missile” defense.

_______

* As explained in the Taxation & Finance study of conformance issues:

…[S]uspension of federal personal exemptions will have a direct impact on the availability of the state standard deduction for single filers. Under current state law, a taxpayer is eligible for the standard deduction for single filers only if the individual “is not married nor the head of a household nor an individual whose federal exemption amount is zero….” This language is intended to preclude joint filers, head of household filers, and taxpayers that are claimed as dependents on other taxpayers’ returns from claiming the single filer deduction ($8,000 for 2018). Absent a state statutory change, single taxpayers will be required to claim the lower deduction intended for dependent filers ($3,100 in 2018). Approximately 5.2 million taxpayers could see their state tax liabilities increase by $840 million in the aggregate.

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

One of New York’s Biggest Medicaid Contractors Is Quietly Acquiring a Competitor

Author's note: This post has been updated to correct an error in the second paragraph. As state lawmakers debate the future of Medicaid home care, one of the program's bigg Read More

The Union Gave Them the Wrong Data. The Pols Cited It Anyway.

The episode shows the extent to which New York elected officials fail to question the state’s public employee unions—or look at data themselves. Read More

New York’s Home Health Workforce Jumped by 12 Percent in One Year

New York's home health workforce has continued its pattern of extraordinary growth, increasing by 62,000 jobs or 12 percent in a single year, according to newly released data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Read More

While New York’s Medicaid Budget Soared, Public Health Funding Languished

Four years after a devastating pandemic, the state has made no major investment to repair or improve its public health defenses. While funding for Medicaid over the past four years Read More

Unions are pressing bogus arguments for blowing up NY’s public pension debts

New York's public employee unions are arguing, without evidence, that state lawmakers need to retroactively sweeten the pensions of workers who have been on the job for more than a decade. In fact, state and federal data show why state lawmakers shouldn't. Read More

A Medicaid Grant Recipient Sponsors a Pro-Hochul Publicity Campaign

While much of the health-care industry is attacking Governor Hochul's Medicaid budget, at least one organization is rallying to her side: Somos Community Care, a politically active medical group in the Bronx that recently r Read More

New Jersey’s Pandemic Report Shines Harsh Light on a New York Scandal

A recently published independent review of New Jersey's pandemic response holds lessons for New York on at least two levels. First, it marked the only serious attempt by any state t Read More

Senate, Assembly Budget Plans Include $4B Pension Giveaway

A little-noticed provision in lawmakers’ budget proposals would also be the most costly: their proposal to change state retirement rules would slam New York taxpayers with more than $4 billion in new debt, and immediately drive up pension costs, by retroactively sweetening the pension benefits of public employees. Read More