August 20, 2026
Hinckley Allen announced today that it has filed a Complaint in Newport Superior Court on behalf of more than 40 Rhode Island homeowners challenging the constitutionality of the state’s new tax on high-value second homes. Widely referred to as the “Taylor Swift Tax” for the state’s most famous part-time resident, the law took effect on July 1, 2026, and imposes an additional $5 charge for every $1,000 of assessed value on second homes valued above $1 million.
The Complaint challenges the law on both federal and state constitutional grounds. The new selective property tax predictably, disproportionately, and improperly targets out-of-state residents who cannot vote in Rhode Island. It also bears no reasonable relationship with its stated purposes. Proponents of the law claim that owners of these second homes consume more municipal services, fail to maintain their properties, degrade neighborhood property values, and should be compelled to rent these homes to help address a low-income housing shortage. But these owners consume less in municipal services (they send no children to the school systems, the single greatest component of municipal spending), maintain their homes, and increase neighborhood property values. And renting homes valued at more than $1,000,000 will not alleviate a shortage of low-income housing.
“When the tax was passed, it troubled many of the owners targeted by this selective tax,” said Jerry Petros, Chair of Hinckley Allen’s Litigation Group and the partner leading the case. “These homeowners already pay high property taxes and pay for more than their fair share of our municipal services, and they do so without complaint. This selective second property tax unfairly targets owners of second homes—predominantly nonresidents—who are often the most generous members of our communities in supporting charities, historic preservation, and other philanthropic causes. This selective tax-grab will also drive out more small business owners who will seek a more business-friendly environment elsewhere. It is bad for the economy and ultimately bad for the State. We are proud to represent these property owners and look forward to advocating for our clients on this important issue.”
The legislative sponsor of the bill acknowledged that the tax selectively targets out-of-state residents who do not vote in Rhode Island and therefore cannot unseat the supporters of this unfair and unconstitutional law, passed because the legislators “need to find some money.” As the complaint states: “The law does violence to one of our democracy’s animating principles: ‘no taxation without representation.’”
The filing builds on Hinckley Allen’s and Petros’s recent track record challenging improper Rhode Island legislation on constitutional grounds. In Roth v. State of Rhode Island, the firm secured a Rhode Island Superior Court ruling that a separate law affecting shoreline property rights violated the Rhode Island Constitution’s separation-of-powers provision and amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property.
