Contentions Regarding the SALT Deduction

The following correspondence was sent by the author to the addressees listed below

TO: The Joint Committee on Taxation, The House Ways and Means Committee, and key persons.
Circulation: Please circulate this document to all pertinent persons.

INTRODUCTION:
This document presents contentions and requests responses thereto concerning the SALT Deduction. It is intended to prompt Congress to meet its obligation to inform the public of the workings of its government. (Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 US 178, 182 and 200, respectively.) The document is also a Petition to urge Congress to not exceed its constitutional powers. (First Amendment.)

DEFINITIONS:
SALT means state and local taxes.
SALT Deduction means that deduction allowed to be taken from the federal income tax liability of taxpayers for SALT.

CONTENTIONS:
1. If it is your contention that Congress has enumerated power to approve the SALT Deduction, please state the support for your contention.
2. If it is your contention that Congress has implied power to approve the SALT Deduction, please state the support for your contention.
3. If it is your contention that United States v. Butler, 297 US 1 – Supreme Court 1936 does not apply to Congress, please state the support for your contention.
4. If your contention is in opposition to the principle that “The federal union is a government of delegated powers.” United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 63 – Supreme Court 1936, please state the support for your contention.
5. If your contention is in opposition to the principle that “[The federal union] has only such [powers] as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonable to be implied from those granted.” United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 63 – Supreme Court 1936, please state the support for your contention.
6. If your contention is in opposition to the principle that “… powers not granted [to Congress] are prohibited.” United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 68 – Supreme Court 1936, please state the support for your contention.
7. If your contention is in opposition to the principle that “It is an established principle that the attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the exertion of powers which are granted.” United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 68 – Supreme Court 1936, please state the support for your contention.
8. If your contention is in opposition to the principle that “Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the Federal Government.” United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 69 – Supreme Court 1936, please state the support for your contention.
9. If your contention is in opposition to the principle that “The power of taxation, which is expressly granted, may, of course, be adopted as a means to carry into operation another power also expressly granted. But resort to the taxing power to effectuate an end which is not legitimate, not within the scope of the Constitution, is obviously inadmissible.” United States v. Butler, 297 US 1, 69 – Supreme Court 1936, please state the support for your contention.
10. I contend that Congress lacks the legitimate power to approve the SALT Deduction, if your contention is otherwise, please state the support for your contention.

Respectfully submitted on December 12, 2017,
John Lucas
45858 Highway 58
Buttonwillow, CA 93206