What's the 'Taylor Swift Tax'? How Rhode Island proposal could impact the star
Taylor Swift's Cape Cod home is reportedly worth about $28.1 million. If the proposal passes, she would be required to pay about $135,500 in taxes annually.
Taylor Swift soon may be required to pay a hefty amount of taxes on her Cape Code home, which is undergoing renovations if a proposed tax act in Rhode Island goes through.
Earlier this month, Rhode Island's House Finance Committee approved the state's 2026 budget, which includes a tax that targets high-end, vacant properties in the state. The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act," deemed the "Taylor Swift Tax," proposes a statewide tax rate for non-primary residences valued at more than $1 million.
If passed, the act would tax properties, which are not the primary residences of their owners, valued more than $1 million.
As Rhode Island's House of Representatives continues to work through the budget bill, here's what to know about the proposal and how it may impact the superstar's wallet.
What is the so-called 'Taylor Swift Tax'?
The proposed act would mean that "non-owner occupied" homes, or secondary residences, valued more than $1 million, would be taxed at $2.50 for each $500 of assessed value. For example, a property assessed at $1.2 million would see an annual tax of $1,000 and a property at $2 million would have a $5,000 annual tax, New England law firm Pierce Atwood explained in a blog post. The total value of the property is not taxed, just the value that exceeds $1 million.
So how much would Swift potentially be taxed? When she purchased the house in 2013, it was worth about $17 million, but the property value has increased over the last decade. Zillow lists the property at $28.1 million, meaning it would be taxed at about $135,500 annually.
The budget bill passed through the state's House Finance Committee days before authorities identified the remains of 31-year-old Eric Wein on Swift's property, shared by the South Kingstown Police Department on June 13. Wein's remains had washed ashore in an enclave on Swift's property on May 14.
Taylor Swift's Cape Cod home: Human remains found near Taylor Swift's Rhode Island home have been identified
When would the tax act go into effect?
The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act" has not been passed yet. As of June 11, the state's 2026 budget bill, which includes the act, was passed in the House Finance Committee. As of June 26, it is under review of the House of Representatives as a whole.
If passed, the tax would effect properties on and after July 1, 2026, the state's budget bill reads.
Who would the tax affect?
If passed, the tax would effect owners of residential properties who own a property that does not serve as their primary residence, valued at $1 million or more as of Dec. 31 of the tax year. The owner would not live at the property the majority of days out of the year.
While the tax may be imagined for wealthy folks like Swift, Rhode Island natives could also be impacted by the tax, Stephen MacGillivray, a Pierce Atwood partner, told USA TODAY.
"Rhode Island's a strange state where people in the northern part of the state have a summer house 40 minutes away ... often handed down from generation to generation. Those sometimes modest homes are now quite often worth more than $1 million, so there's concern that this is going to hit Rhode Islanders."
A potential renting loophole
The tax would not affect owners of rental properties that have been rented within the past 183 days, the budget bill states. MacGillivray said this exception may lend itself to an "interesting loophole."
"You can imagine people coming up with all sorts of arrangements from legitimate to not so legitimate, where by they rent their house while they're not there," he said.
Why did Rhode Island propose the tax act?
High-end properties that are not an owner's primary residence can have an affect on their neighborhoods, city and state at large, the budget bill states. These property owners may not have a "vested" interest in the community their property is within and often, these properties remain "deliberately" vacant.
MacGillivray said some believe these vacant properties are an eyesore in a vibrant community at the budget bill states that vacant properties often are in greater demand of police and fire protection.
Contributing: Jay Stahl, USA TODAY
Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@usatoday.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump makes case for ‘big, beautiful bill' and cranks up pressure on Republicans
Donald Trump convened congressional leaders and cabinet secretaries at the White House on Thursday to make the case for passage of his marquee tax-and-spending bill, but it remains to be seen if his pep talk will resolve a developing logjam that could threaten its passage through the Senate. The president's intervention comes as Senate majority leader John Thune mulls an initial vote on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' on Friday, ahead of a 4 July deadline Trump has imposed to have the legislation ready for his signature. But it is unclear if Republicans have the votes to pass it through Congress's upper chamber, and whether any changes the Senate makes will pass muster in the House of Representatives, where the Republican majority passed the bill last month by a single vote and which may have to vote again on a revised version of the bill. Trump stood before an assembly composed of police and fire officers, working parents and the mother and father of a woman he said died at the hands of an undocumented immigrant to argue that Americans like them would benefit from the bill, which includes new tax cuts and the extension of lower rates enacted during his first term, as well as an infusion of funds for immigration enforcement. 'There are hundreds of things here. It's so good,' he said. But he made no mention of his desire to sign the legislation by next Friday – the US Independence Day holiday – instead encouraging his audience to contact their lawmakers to get the bill over the finish line. 'If you can, call your senators, call your congressmen. We have to get the vote,' he said. Democrats have dubbed the bill the 'big, ugly betrayal', and railed against its potential cut to Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for low income and disabled people. The legislation would impose the biggest funding cut to Medicaid since it was created in 1965, and cost an estimated 16 million people their insurance. It would also slash funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which helps Americans afford food. Republicans intend to circumvent the filibuster in the Senate by using the budget reconciliation procedure, under which they can pass legislation with just a majority vote, provided it only affects spending, revenue and the debt limit. But on Thursday, Democrats on the Senate budget committee announced that the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, had ruled that a change to taxes that states use to pay for Medicaid was not allowed under the rules of reconciliation. That could further raise the cost of the bill, which the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation recently estimated would add a massive $4.2tn to the US budget deficit over 10 years. Such a high cost may be unpalatable to rightwing lawmakers in the House who are demanding aggressive spending cuts, but the more immediate concern for the GOP lies in the Senate, where several moderate lawmakers still have not said they are a yes vote on the bill. 'I don't think anybody believes the current text is final, so I don't believe anybody would vote for it in it's current form. We [have] got a lot of things that we're working on,' Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a top target of Democrats in next year's midterm elections, told CNN on Wednesday. In an interview with the Guardian last week, Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski declined to say how she would vote on the bill, instead describing it as 'a work in progress' and arguing that the Senate should 'not necessarily tie ourselves to an arbitrary date to just get there as quickly as we can'. Democrats took credit for MacDonough's ruling on the Medicaid tax, with Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer saying the party 'successfully fought a noxious provision that would've decimated America's healthcare system and hurt millions of Americans. This win saves hundreds of billions of dollars for Americans to get healthcare, rather than funding tax cuts to billionaires.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US voters: share your views on Trump's one big beautiful bill act
The one big beautiful bill act, which would enact Donald Trump's taxation and spending priorities, is currently being considered in the US Senate. The legislation was passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in May. Republicans, who also have a narrow Senate majority, are likely to make changes to the more than 1,000-page tax-and-spending bill. Trump wants to sign the legislation by 4 July, but it's unclear whether Republicans in both chambers can agree on its provisions by that deadline. We would like to hear views from voters about the one big beautiful bill act. What do you think of the bill as it's currently written? And, what would you like included in Trump's major piece of tax-and-spending legislation? We're particularly interested in hearing from Republican voters.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What's the 'Taylor Swift Tax'? How Rhode Island proposal could impact the star
Taylor Swift soon may be required to pay a hefty amount of taxes on her New England home, which is undergoing renovations, if a proposed tax act in Rhode Island goes through. Earlier this month, Rhode Island's House Finance Committee approved the state's 2026 budget, which includes a tax that targets high-end, vacant properties in the state. The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act," deemed the "Taylor Swift Tax," proposes a statewide tax rate for non-primary residences valued at more than $1 million. If passed, the act would tax properties, which are not the primary residences of their owners, valued more than $1 million. As Rhode Island's House of Representatives continues to work through the budget bill, here's what to know about the proposal and how it may impact the superstar's wallet. The proposed act would mean that "non-owner occupied" homes, or secondary residences, valued more than $1 million, would be taxed at $2.50 for each $500 of assessed value. For example, a property assessed at $1.2 million would see an annual tax of $1,000 and a property at $2 million would have a $5,000 annual tax, New England law firm Pierce Atwood explained in a blog post. The total value of the property is not taxed, just the value that exceeds $1 million. So how much would Swift potentially be taxed? When she purchased the house in 2013, it was worth about $17 million, but the property value has increased over the last decade. Zillow lists the property at $28.1 million, meaning it would be taxed at about $135,500 annually. The budget bill passed through the state's House Finance Committee days before authorities identified the remains of 31-year-old Eric Wein on Swift's property, shared by the South Kingstown Police Department on June 13. Wein's remains had washed ashore in an enclave on Swift's property on May 14. Taylor Swift's home: Human remains found near Taylor Swift's Rhode Island home have been identified The "Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax Act" has not been passed yet. As of June 11, the state's 2026 budget bill, which includes the act, was passed in the House Finance Committee. As of June 26, it is under review of the House of Representatives as a whole. If passed, the tax would affect properties on and after July 1, 2026, the state's budget bill reads. If passed, the tax would affect owners of residential properties who own a property that does not serve as their primary residence, valued at $1 million or more as of Dec. 31 of the tax year. The owner would not live at the property the majority of days out of the year. While the tax may be imagined for wealthy folks like Swift, Rhode Island natives could also be impacted by the tax, Stephen MacGillivray, a Pierce Atwood partner, told USA TODAY. "Rhode Island's a strange state where people in the northern part of the state have a summer house 40 minutes away ... often handed down from generation to generation. Those sometimes modest homes are now quite often worth more than $1 million, so there's concern that this is going to hit Rhode Islanders." The tax would not affect owners of rental properties that have been rented within the past 183 days, the budget bill states. MacGillivray said this exception may lend itself to an "interesting loophole." "You can imagine people coming up with all sorts of arrangements from legitimate to not so legitimate, where by they rent their house while they're not there," he said. High-end properties that are not an owner's primary residence can have an affect on their neighborhoods, city and state at large, the budget bill states. These property owners may not have a "vested" interest in the community their property is within and often, these properties remain "deliberately" vacant. MacGillivray said some believe these vacant properties are an eyesore in a vibrant community at the budget bill states that vacant properties often are in greater demand of police and fire protection. This story was updated to clarify where Taylor Swift's Rhode Island home is located. and correct typos. Contributing: Jay Stahl, USA TODAY Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'Taylor Swift Tax': Rhode Island housing policy could impact singer Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
