Public records · Emails · EML

RE: Internal FW: Calvin request

Sameroff, Rebecca · Oct 30, 2026, 3:13 PM EDT

From: "Sameroff, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov> To: "Connizzo, Katelyn" <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov>, "Feldman, Jake" <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 19:13:52 +0000 Subject: RE: Internal FW: Calvin request Ah great point Kate – we only need to address Calvin’s question. However, it feels like a half story without noting the inaccuracy of the claim that some folks are seeing a huge cut this year from OBBBA. Reframed it below as a response to PAI’s complaint that Calvin received. How do folks feel about that? Like the commissioner inbox strategy and then if he needs more discussion we could talk about who’s best positioned at that point…. Jake I added some additional content to help a layman follow the argument. Can you reread and make any suggested edits if I muddied things? I’m sorry I had the changes in red but accidentally pasted some formatting and lost them! The third bullet got the biggest facelift. Little additions elsewhere. Hi Calvin, Happy to provide some background regarding the legislature’s 2018 income tax reform. * In Act 11 of 2018, in response to the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Legislature made Vermont's income tax more progressive, increasing taxes on filers with income over $100,000 by about $11M and decreasing taxes on filers under that by about $9M. A former analyst from the Joint Fiscal Office, Graham Campbell, who served the House Ways and Means (HWM) Committee during this chapter, testified<https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/House%20Ways%20and%20Means/Bills/DR%2026-0804/W~Graham%20Campbell~Tax%20Cut%20and%20Jobs%20Act,%20Retrospective%20and%20Lessons~4-21-2026.pdf#page=5> to that effect this past spring. * Part of the justification for the tax increase at that time was the understanding that the federal income taxes of the highest earning Vermonters were decreasing as a result of the TCJA. The tax impacts of the TCJA varied based on each taxpayer’s circumstances, but in many cases the new $10,000 federal limitation on the federal state and local income tax deduction (the "SALT" deduction) generated tax increases that outstripped the tax savings from the lower marginal rates. This was especially true in high tax states like Vermont. We explained<https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2018/WorkGroups/Senate%20Finance/Bills/H.911/H.911~Jake%20Feldman~Impacts%20to%20Vermont%20Taxpayers%20of%20the%20Tax%20Cuts%20and%20Jobs%20Act~4-6-2018.pdf> that and showed the math in committee * Public Assets is a member of the Fair Share for Vermont Coalition<https://fairsharevt.org/release-jan28-2026> whose policy position on income tax reform is based on an inaccurate characterization of the tax changes in H.R.1. The Coalition’s page states, “Due to the passage of H.R. 1, the top 1% of Vermont income earners are set to receive an average annual tax cut of $57,000, beginning in 2026.” The $57,000 figure for the top 1% of Vermonters is not a new tax cut. Rather, it represents the tax increase that high-income earners would have faced if the tax provisions of the 2017 TCJA had expired. H.R. 1 extended those existing tax provisions. The Institute for Economic Policy (ITEP) sent a note to the HWM committee correcting their testimony on that and it is here<https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/House%20Ways%20and%20Means/Bills/DR%2026-0804/W~Miles%20Trinidad~Miles%20Trinidad%20Clarification~4-16-2026.pdf>. Note that the $25,000 in “business-side” tax cuts they reference relates to the OBBBA allowing businesses to claim expenses related to new equipment and research and development in the year the expenses occurred rather than having to prorate those expenses over a period of time. In other words, they are not simple tax "cuts." These provisions primarily change the timing of business tax deductions, not the amount of tax ultimately owed. From: Connizzo, Katelyn <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2026 10:27 AM To: Sameroff, Rebecca <Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov>; Feldman, Jake <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov> Subject: RE: Internal FW: Calvin request I would suggest that in the name of refocusing on how we would like press communications to be channeled in the future it should come from the Commissioner’s inbox of possible (Maude is exempt, right?). I would also suggest that we remove the third bullet from the initial email. Calvin’s question doesn’t seem to me to be about the balance of the op-ed, even if the op-ed may have influenced his writing on this particular point. He might clarify that he would like more on the $57k, in which case we can respond with what we have prepared here, but including the third bullet at this point feels unrelated and too defensive to me. The story we think he’s asking about doesn’t mention the $57k or the Department at all. My read on the request is that Public Assets doesn’t like the use of the verb “claw back” in the 10/21 story<https://www.wcax.com/news/2026/10/21/vermont-weighs-new-tax-high-earners-amid-budget-pressures/>, and Calvin would like to double up his fact checking on its usage. Thanks so much, Kate Kate Connizzo (she/her) Director of Communications and Organizational Development Vermont Department of Taxes 133 State St, Montpelier, VT [phone redacted] tax.vermont.gov<https://tax.vermont.gov/> From: Sameroff, Rebecca <Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov<mailto:Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2026 9:12 AM To: Feldman, Jake <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov<mailto:Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov>>; Connizzo, Katelyn <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov<mailto:Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov>> Subject: Re: Internal FW: Calvin request I’m going to have you review a few tweaks and extra sentences (for Calvin’s benefit) when I break from meetings over lunchtime. High level this is exactly what we needed! Question for both of you –– do folks have a preference as to whether this email comes from a technocrat like Jake or another exempt appointee (me). Calvin hasn’t been part of the “should tax have been involved” question so maybe not an issue either way. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> _____ From: Feldman, Jake <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov<mailto:Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov>> Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2026 14:38:22 To: Sameroff, Rebecca <Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov<mailto:Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov>>; Connizzo, Katelyn <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov<mailto:Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov>> Subject: Re: Internal FW: Calvin request Here are some ideas on what to say back to Calvin. Maybe TMI or too technical * In 2018, in response to the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Legislature made Vermont's income tax more progressive, increasing taxes on filers with income over $100,000 by about $11M and decreasing taxes on filers under that by about $9M. A former analyst from the Joint Fiscal Office testified<https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/House%20Ways%20and%20Means/Bills/DR%2026-0804/W~Graham%20Campbell~Tax%20Cut%20and%20Jobs%20Act,%20Retrospective%20and%20Lessons~4-21-2026.pdf#page=5> to that effect this past spring. * Part of the justification for the tax increase at that time was the perception that the federal income taxes of the highest earning Vermonters were decreasing as a result of the TCJA. The tax impacts of the TCJA varied based on the taxpayer, but in many cases the new $10,000 limitation on the federal state and local income tax deduction (the "SALT" deduction) outstripped the value from the lower marginal rates. This was especially true in high tax states like Vermont. We explained<https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2018/WorkGroups/Senate%20Finance/Bills/H.911/H.911~Jake%20Feldman~Impacts%20to%20Vermont%20Taxpayers%20of%20the%20Tax%20Cuts%20and%20Jobs%20Act~4-6-2018.pdf> that and showed the math in committee * We stand by the commissioner's op-ed stating that the $57,000 tax cut figure for the top 1% of Vermonters was not a new tax cut but in fact an extension of the 2017 TCJA. The Institute for Economic Policy (ITEP) sent a note to the committee correcting their testimony on that and it is here<https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/House%20Ways%20and%20Means/Bills/DR%2026-0804/W~Miles%20Trinidad~Miles%20Trinidad%20Clarification~4-16-2026.pdf>. The $25,000 in business side tax cuts they reference mostly has to do with the OBBBA allowing businesses to claim expenses related to new equipment and research and development in the year they occurred rather than having to prorate them. In other words, they are not tax "cuts" just changing of when the tax benefit occurs. _____ From: Sameroff, Rebecca <Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov<mailto:Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2026 12:10 PM To: Connizzo, Katelyn <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov<mailto:Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov>>; Feldman, Jake <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov<mailto:Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov>> Subject: RE: Internal FW: Calvin request (And YES great clarification, Kate! Poor use of the word quote.) From: Connizzo, Katelyn <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov<mailto:Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2026 11:05 AM To: Sameroff, Rebecca <Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov<mailto:Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov>>; Feldman, Jake <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov<mailto:Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov>> Subject: RE: Internal FW: Calvin request Just clarifying that it’s not a quote attributed to an individual. The sentence is part of the article unattributed. Realize that may have been what you meant in the first place! Kate Connizzo (she/her) Director of Communications and Organizational Development Vermont Department of Taxes 133 State St, Montpelier, VT [phone redacted] tax.vermont.gov<https://tax.vermont.gov/> From: Sameroff, Rebecca <Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov<mailto:Rebecca.Sameroff@vermont.gov>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2026 11:00 AM To: Feldman, Jake <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov<mailto:Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov>> Cc: Connizzo, Katelyn <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov<mailto:Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov>> Subject: Internal FW: Calvin request Hey Jake, Let’s connect about handling the below question from Calvin. This ask refers to WCAX coverage that included a quote that’s likely based on Bill’s op-ed (which Calvin had access to from Sarah M). Likely this story<https://www.wcax.com/news/2026/10/21/vermont-weighs-new-tax-high-earners-amid-budget-pressures/> and this statement – “Vermont lawmakers clawed back Trump administration tax cuts on the wealthy in 2018, and now some want to tax those higher earners again.” I’m clear between 1130-1 and again around 3pm. Fun. Rebecca From: Mearhoff, Sarah <Sarah.Mearhoff@vermont.gov<mailto:Sarah.Mearhoff@vermont.gov>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2026 10:22 AM To: TAX - Commissioner <TAX.Commissioner@vermont.gov<mailto:TAX.Commissioner@vermont.gov>> Cc: Connizzo, Katelyn <Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov<mailto:Katelyn.Connizzo@vermont.gov>>; Feldman, Jake <Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov<mailto:Jake.Feldman@vermont.gov>> Subject: Calvin request Good morning! Forwarding on some texts I got from WCAX’s Calvin Cutler this morning. Sounds like he could just use a conversation with someone on background or off the record to clarify that his story from last week doesn’t really need to be corrected… Hey Sarah! I had a quick follow up question for you regarding the Fair Share proposal. I’m just now getting some pushback from public assets folks about our framing of the legislature clawing back some tax cuts in 2018. And the idea of it being a “new” tax versus “clawing back” tax cuts from HR1. Got a minute to chat at some point? Thanks! No specific deadline- they are asking me to make changes 8 days after it aired, so I don’t get the sense there is a ton of urgency to it