You’re more fair than I - and I’ll cop to jumping to pure saltiness a bit too hard.
The full decision with the dissent is https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-800_jg6o.pdf
I know it gets complicated - at least the decision DOES seem to be narrowly carved out so maybe we’re talking... heavy petting (that cracks the door open to...) rather than my tart cliche.
I suppose I wouldn’t disagree that sure, there’s plenty of sleaziness to be had with “reimbursement” (regardless of whether it involves an international entity or not) but at initial blush - the travel expenses don’t seem terribly unreasonable.
Fundamentally, I guess I just flew off the handle initially because the reality IS we aren’t really talking gains here.
I know people hate loopholes but I guess I just lean on the idea that the loophole door swings both ways: loopholes for benefits that don’t constitute income, but also loopholes for the feds to grasp more money.
I’m going to read the decision (and the dissent!) more closely... and FWIW? Thanks for calming me at least :-)
No worries. :)
If you figure it out, feel free to educate me as well. From my initial question/comment, I thought Trump did this (whatever exactly this was) to close a loop hole and help bring investment back to in country, which I would support. A wealth tax I would never support.