Overview
- Nearly 1,000 pages of records show legislative leaders and the Attorney General’s Office discussed writing the 9.9% tax to invite a legal challenge to the Culliton precedent that labels income as property.
- Emails cited by The Center Square describe advice from Solicitor General Noah Purcell to add an emergency clause to block a referendum, and staff notes that the goal was to get the Supreme Court to overturn Culliton.
- Opponents filed multiple suits, including a Citizens Action Defense Fund case led by former AG Rob McKenna that argues a progressive income tax violates the state constitution, and a separate challenge targeting the law’s referendum-blocking language.
- A trucking company owner who files business profits as personal income joined the CADF case and says the tax would limit raises and equipment buys at his 14‑employee firm.
- The Attorney General’s Office says it will defend the law and that advising legislators is routine, while collections would not begin until 2028 as courts weigh the challenges and as the state’s 2023 capital‑gains excise ruling looms in the background.