As reported last week, Senate Bill 1510 (“SB 1510”) was passed by the Oregon Senate on February 24, 2026. It was passed by the Oregon House of Representatives on March 4, 2026. Now, it sits on Governor Tina Kotek’s desk awaiting her signature.
One of our readers asked me a simple question: “What happens next in the legislative process?” As I commenced to answer that question, with his assistance, I quickly realized that taxpayers and tax practitioners do have something to worry about. That worry relates to how SB 1510 was drafted.
In accordance with Section 15b of Article V of the Oregon Constitution, after a bill passes both the House and the Senate, before it becomes law, it is presented to the Governor for action. The Governor can take one of three actions: (i) she may sign the bill into law, (ii) she may allow a bill to become law without signature, or (iii) she may return the bill to the legislature or the Oregon Secretary of State with objections.
As reported earlier, Senate Bill 1510 (“SB 1510”), if passed and signed into law by Governor Tina Kotek, would extend the life of the Oregon state and local tax (“SALT”) workaround for eligible pass-through entities for two more tax years (i.e., through the 2027 tax year).
SB 1510 was passed by the Oregon Senate on February 24, 2026. That same day, it was introduced in the Oregon House of Representatives (“House”). Yesterday, March 4, 2026, it received unanimous approval by members of the House (52 “yea” votes, with eight representatives absent). Now, SB 1510 will be delivered to Governor Kotek for signing. She is expected to sign SB 1510 into law.[1]
Two of our readers alerted me yesterday afternoon that Oregon lawmakers are attempting to keep the Oregon SALT workaround alive and well.
Senate Bill 1510 (“SB 1510”) was introduced in the Oregon Senate on February 24 (hours after I put my pencil down from writing the last blog article and awaiting its publication). The bill has been passed by the Senate and is currently waiting to be voted on by members of the House of Representatives.
Unlike Senate Bill 211 (“SB 211”), which was introduced in the Oregon legislature during the 2025 session, SB 1510 is not a standalone bill solely focusing on extending the life of the Oregon SALT workaround. Rather, a provision to extend the SALT workaround is sandwiched between three other provisions, namely a provision extending a property tax exemption for cargo containers, the repeal of a tribal tax exemption and a requirement that the board of tax practitioners register enrolled agents.
Background
Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), there was no direct limitation on an individual taxpayer’s deduction of his or her state and local taxes (“SALT”) on the federal individual income tax return. Of course, for high-income taxpayers, the SALT deduction often triggered the alternative minimum tax.
The TCJA
As of 2018, the TCJA capped the SALT deduction for individuals at $10,000 per year for both single and married taxpayers filing jointly ($5,000 for married taxpayers filing separately). Hence, the SALT cap contains an inherent “marriage penalty.”
The OBBBA
The SALT cap, which was part of a compromise among lawmakers for an increase in the standard deduction under the TCJA, was scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025. However, as previously reported, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”) amended and extended the SALT cap.
The following are the key elements of the SALT cap, as extended under the OBBBA:
- The OBBBA amendment to the SALT cap applies to taxable years beginning after 2024.
- The cap is now $40,000 ($20,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately). It increases by 1% each year but reverts to $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately) in 2030. The cap, as reduced in 2030 to $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately), does not appear to sunset. So, it becomes a so-called permanent provision of the Internal Revenue Code.
- Under the OBBBA, the cap is reduced by 30% of a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income to the extent it exceeds the threshold amount ($500,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and single taxpayers, and $250,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately). However, the SALT cap cannot be reduced below $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately).
After the SALT cap was introduced as part of the TCJA, the Internal Revenue Service announced in IRS Notice 2020-75, with respect to pass-through entities (LLCs or other entities taxed as partnerships or S corporations), that, if state law allows or requires the entity itself to pay state and local taxes (which normally pass through and are paid by the ultimate owners of the entity), the entity will not be subject to the $10,000 SALT cap. As a consequence, many state legislatures passed so-called SALT cap workarounds for pass-through entities. Oregon was among those states.
On July 1, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R.1 – 199th Congress (2025-2026) (the “Act”) was passed in the U.S. Senate (“Senate”). On July 3, 2025, it was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives (“House”) and presented to President Trump to be signed into law. On July 4, 2025, the President signed the Act into law.
I intend to present several installments on my blog featuring some of the most important tax provisions of the Act, allowing us to break down these provisions in detail. This first installment is a continuation of my coverage of the SALT deduction provision of the Act.
As reported on May 16, 2025, the SALT cap proposal contained in the legislation that was pending in the U.S. House of Representatives (“House”) aimed at, among other things, dealing with the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) was not well received by lawmakers from high-income tax states such as Oregon, New York, Hawaii and California. That proposal increased the SALT cap from $10,000 to $30,000, but it contained a downward adjustment for taxpayers with “modified adjusted gross income” over $400,000. For this purpose, modified adjusted gross income is adjusted gross income plus any amounts excluded from income under Code Sections 911, 931 and 933. Under that proposal, the $30,000 cap is reduced by 20% of a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income to the extent it exceeds $400,000 ($200,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately). However, the SALT cap cannot be reduced below $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing separately).
It appears the SALT cap proposal may have been the last item holding up the passage of the bill by members of the House. After hours of debate and discussion, the proposal was modified, and the House passed the bill on May 22, 2025. It now sits in the U.S. Senate (“Senate”), where it is expected this provision of the bill, among others, will face fierce debate.
Background
Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), there was no direct limitation on an individual taxpayer’s deduction of his or her state and local taxes (“SALT”) on the federal individual income tax return. Of course, for high-income taxpayers, the SALT deduction often triggered the alternative minimum tax.
As of 2018, as a result of the TCJA, the SALT deduction for individuals was capped at $10,000 per year for both single and married taxpayers filing jointly ($5,000 for married taxpayers filing separately). Hence, the cap contains an inherent “marriage penalty.”
The SALT cap was added to the TCJA, in part, as a compromise for an increase in the standard deduction (almost doubling it from pre-TCJA days). It is, however, set to sunset at the end of this year.
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced today that the state of New York, joined by the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland, have instituted a lawsuit against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to strike the $10,000 cap imposed on the state and local tax (“SALT”) itemized deduction by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, which specifically names Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Treasury Secretary and David Kautter, Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, as defendants, asserts that the SALT cap (previously discussed in an earlier blog post) was specifically enacted by the federal government to target New York and similarly situated states, that it interferes with a state’s right to make its own fiscal decisions, and that it disproportionately adversely impacts taxpayers in those states.
RSS Feed
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on LinkedIn
Larry J. Brant
Editor
Larry J. Brant is a Shareholder and the Chair of the Tax & Benefits practice group at Foster Garvey, a law firm based out of the Pacific Northwest, with offices in Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C.; New York, New York, Spokane, Washington; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Mr. Brant is licensed to practice in Oregon and Washington. His practice focuses on tax, tax controversy and business transactions. Mr. Brant is a past Chair of the Oregon State Bar Taxation Section. He was the long-term Chair of the Oregon Tax Institute, and is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Portland Tax Forum. Mr. Brant has served as an adjunct professor, teaching corporate taxation, at Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College. He is a frequent lecturer at local, regional and national tax and business conferences for CPAs and attorneys. Mr. Brant is an Expert Contributor to Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Catalyst. He is a Fellow in the American College of Tax Counsel. Mr. Brant publishes articles on numerous income tax issues, including Taxation of S corporations, Taxation of C corporations, Reasonable Compensation, Circular 230, Worker Classification, IRC Section 1031 Exchanges, Choice of Entity, Entity Tax Classification, and State and Local Taxation. Since 2019, he has been a multiple-time honoree of the JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards for Tax, recognizing him as a Top Author for thought leadership and reader engagement on its platform. Mr. Brant was the 2015 Recipient of the Oregon State Bar Tax Section Award of Merit.
