The Impact of Trump's Tax Conformity Divide on State Budgets and Investment Opportunities

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 created a fragmented fiscal landscape across U.S. states, as each jurisdiction chose its own path in aligning with federal tax reforms. This divergence-between rolling conformity, static conformity, and selective decoupling-has generated asymmetric risks and opportunities for state budgets and investment activity. By analyzing these dynamics, investors and policymakers can better navigate the complex interplay between federal tax policy and state-level fiscal strategies.

The Conformity Divide: Rolling vs. Static vs. Selective

States have adopted three primary approaches to integrating TCJA provisions into their tax codes:
1. Rolling Conformity: States like Colorado, Connecticut, and New York automatically adopt federal tax changes unless they explicitly decouple. This approach ensures immediate alignment with federal incentives, such as 100% bonus depreciation under § 168(k), which encourages business investment by allowing rapid asset write-offs.
2. Static Conformity: Jurisdictions like California, Texas, and Florida conform to a fixed version of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). For example, Texas adheres to the 2007 IRC, while California aligns with the 2015 version of the IRC. These states must legislate updates to incorporate new federal provisions, creating delays and uncertainty for businesses.
3. Selective Conformity: States such as Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., pick and choose which federal provisions to adopt. For instance, Massachusetts decoupled from bonus depreciation under § 168(k), requiring taxpayers to maintain separate depreciation schedules for state and federal purposes.

Fiscal Impacts: Revenue Shortfalls and Budget Strains

The TCJA's revenue-neutral design at the federal level masked significant asymmetries at the state level. States that fully conformed to TCJA provisions faced revenue erosion, particularly from corporate tax cuts and accelerated depreciation. For example:
- Delaware projected a $400 million revenue shortfall due to conformity with federal corporate tax cuts, driven by a $220 million decline in corporate tax revenue.
- Iowa used over $900 million in state reserves to offset the impact of aggressive personal and corporate tax cuts, which slowed economic growth and reduced tax collections.
- Kentucky and Wyoming experienced growing budget shortfalls as tax cuts outpaced revenue replacement efforts, straining public services like education as reported by ITEP.

Conversely, states that decoupled from specific TCJA provisions mitigated revenue losses. California decoupled from Section 174 (research and experimentation expenses), preserving revenue by requiring businesses to amortize R&E costs over time rather than deducting them immediately.

Investment Opportunities: Attraction vs. Uncertainty

The type of conformity a state adopts directly influences its appeal to businesses and investors:
- Rolling Conformity States: These jurisdictions, such as New York and Illinois, attract capital-intensive industries by offering immediate access to federal incentives like full expensing. For example, the reinstatement of 100% bonus depreciation under § 168(k) is projected to benefit 17 states, spurring investment in machinery and equipment.
- Static Conformity States: Jurisdictions like Texas and Florida face uncertainty due to delayed adoption of federal provisions. Texas, which conforms to the 2007 IRC, lacks access to newer depreciation rules, potentially deterring businesses seeking rapid asset write-offs.
- Selective Conformity States: Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., face administrative burdens from decoupling decisions. Massachusetts' rejection of bonus depreciation requires businesses to maintain dual depreciation schedules, increasing compliance costs and deterring investment.

Pass-through entity tax (PTET) regimes further illustrate the investment calculus. States like Connecticut and New York implemented PTET to circumvent the TCJA's $10,000 SALT deduction cap, allowing pass-through entities to pay state taxes at the entity level and pass benefits to owners. This innovation has made these states more competitive for high-income professionals and small businesses.

Asymmetric Risks and Opportunities

The TCJA's legacy reveals stark contrasts in fiscal outcomes and investment trends:
- High-Tax States: New York and California faced outmigration pressures due to the SALT cap, prompting legislative responses like PTET and temporary SALT cap increases under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
- Corporate Tax Cuts: States like Michigan decoupled from corporate tax changes to offset revenue losses but embraced individual tax breaks, balancing fiscal sustainability with business incentives.
-
International Tax Complexity: The TCJA's shift from GILTI to NCTI created compliance challenges for states managing cross-border investments, complicating conformity efforts.

Conclusion: Strategic Implications for Investors

The TCJA's conformity divide underscores the importance of state-level tax policy in shaping investment decisions. Rolling conformity states offer immediate access to federal incentives, fostering business growth but risking revenue shortfalls. Static and selective conformity states prioritize fiscal stability but may deter investment through uncertainty and compliance costs. Investors should prioritize jurisdictions that align with their risk profiles: capital-intensive industries may favor rolling conformity states, while service-sector businesses might seek PTET-friendly environments. As states continue to adapt to federal tax changes, the interplay between conformity choices and fiscal outcomes will remain a critical factor in regional economic competitiveness.