Posted on 08/11/2023 8:36:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A little-discussed legal case heading for a hearing at the US Supreme Court’s October session has the ability to not only blow up a lot of current tax law but torpedo Joe Biden’s proposed “billionaires tax” before the House of Representatives gets the chance to euthanize it.
In 2005, Charles and Kathleen Moore invested $40,000 in an Indian business named KisanKraft, which marketed power tools to Indian farmers in exchange for 13% of the company’s equity. It was a good investment, and the company made a profit every year. The profit was reinvested in the company and made no distribution to equity owners. The 13% equity share the Moores owned increased in notional value, but they didn’t receive a single cent in income.
Ordinarily, the Moores would have had a tax bill due when they sold their share of the business or started receiving a share of the profits. This changed in 2017 with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; investors in foreign corporations, like the Moores, were hit with a one-time “repatriation” tax on profits held overseas. The profits were based on the increased investment value even though the asset was not sold. I won’t tell you who controlled the Executive and both houses of the Legislative Branch when this was passed.
As a result of the change in the law, the Moores were hit with a $14,729 tax bill. They paid the bill and sued the federal government claiming a violation of the 16th Amendment.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Moores’ theory is pretty basic. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution reads:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
While the 16th Amendment permits an income tax, income has always meant, well, income. As the 2017 bill introduced by Texas Republican Kevin Brady taxes unrealized profits as a direct tax and not apportioned among the states, the tax is illegal. Supreme Court precedent seems to agree. In Eisner v. Macomber (1920), the Supreme Court ruled:
There, the Court addressed whether a corporation’s issuance of additional shares to a stockholder as stock dividends was
incomeunder the Sixteenth Amendment and, if not, whether a tax on those unrealized gains was a direct tax.29 After concluding that the stock dividends were notincome,30 the Court relied on Pollock [v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.] to conclude that the tax was a direct tax.31
The Moores lost in district court and again in the Ninth Circuit.
The problem is that US tax law has moved on from that dusty old Constitution thing.
The court faces a difficult question: Is this mandatory tax on foreign profits that shareholders never actually received constitutional under the 16th Amendment? The Supreme Court has maintained since 1920 that income must be “clearly realized” for it to be taxable. Yet the U.S. tax code is riddled with taxes on unrealized income.
For example, the main tenet of partnership tax law is that partners are taxed on income allocated to them for tax purposes, whether or not they actually receive the income. The Supreme Court upheld this principle in 1938, less than three decades after the 16th Amendment was ratified. Since 1962, the United States has also taxed the passive and highly mobile income of overseas corporations controlled by U.S. shareholders, whether or not the income is distributed to them, to prevent aggressive tax avoidance strategies. The TCJA’s mandatory repatriation tax fits within this existing international tax regime.
Small case, massive impact.
Like so many things in life, the “gray area” is only our attempt to justify some fu**ed up action we really want to take. Nearly everything in life is black and white. Sure, obeying the Constitution is difficult when you want to do unconstitutional stuff. And you can twist and turn all kinds of ways to rationalize locking down communities. But just because that has been done in the past is no reason to continue doing it.
Where the real impact of this decision will come is Joe Biden’s attempt to scapegoat any American wealth. Biden’s tax proposal for FY 2024 includes a 20% tax on unrealized capital gains. That’s what the Moores had. This tax would hit households with over $100 million net worth. So if you started a trucking company with a single rented truck and built it up until you break the net worth threshold, you could owe the government a quarter of your company’s value no matter how much cash you have on hand.
Words should have meaning; at least they did until Harry Blackmun decided abortion was health care, Anthony Kennedy found homosexuality to be in a “realm of personal liberty,” and John Roberts declared Obamacare was not a tax.
The Supreme Court should take this as an opportunity to reiterate two precedents that backstop the black-letter words of the Constitution and the English language. Taxing people on money they haven’t made is obscene. Opening the door to the government confiscating wealth is a betrayal of the country because that is where this concept leads.
The Feds are all about Tax and Inflate [to tax again].
Traitor Roberts has not reformed himself.
Passed by Republicans.
One word...obamacare.
The constitution was destroyed long ago.
“Imputed income”?
I think that means you get taxed, not on what you made but what you COULD have made.
I hope that rotten mess goes down in flames.
RE: I think that means you get taxed, not on what you made but what you COULD have made.
Suppose I bought stocks in Apple and held on to the stock for several years. Now I calculate that I made a profit of about $50,000 from my initial investment, but prefer to still hold on to the stock ( i.e., I have not sold the stocks at all ).
What does imputed income mean for me?
Isn’t that how property taxes have always been? You pay off some estimate by government of what you house value might be, but only if you actually sold it, first.
That is a complete racket.
FTA-—Words should have meaning; at least they did until
<><> Harry Blackmun decided abortion was health care,
<><>Anthony Kennedy found homosexuality to be in the “realm of personal liberty”
<><>and John Roberts declared Obamacare was not a tax.
I bought some property 20 years ago. It has tripled in value.
By the logic of “imputed income” I would owe about 150,000 dollars on income that I have not received yet. When it is sold in the future I will most certainly owe tax on the profits realized.
RE: <><>and John Roberts declared Obamacare was not a tax.
Actually John Roberts declared Obamacare TO BE A TAX, which is within the authority of Congress ( which passed it ).
There’s another way to read the 2012 Roberts’ decision,
Roberts’ opinion said people had a choice whether to buy
insurance or face a tax penalty.......that choice remains,
even if the tax penalty is zero.
The right to infringe shall not be limited.
bkmk
I hereby offer to purchase your property for 150 MILLION dollars!
There! Now you owe even more taxes!
(Because "$150 million" is now the "going rate" for your property, even if no actual financial transaction has taken place / no sale has been recorded / no money has changed hands.)
Regards,
Does that mean the government can tax me today for an inheritance I might receive years down the road?
This changed in 2017 with the passage
That’s all you need to know. Republican house, Republican senate and a Republican president who signed it with a group of media Impressed by their evil deeds.
An awful monster would be unleashed in the name of fairness.
Yup. Our house has doubled in value since we bought it. So has the tax bill.
Ignoring the fact that this type of tax should be (and maybe is) unconstitutional taxing it on a value given by the very people collecting the tax is insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.