required to pay a one-time $15,000 tax on an investment in India that grew in value from $40,000 to over a half million dollars.
followed later by:
their one-time tax was $15,000, coincidentally roughly the amount Charles Moore was reimbursed for travel expenses when he went to India for board meetings.
I feel like there's more to the story that I dont know. Like the Moore's arent just simple investors, simple stock holders with foreign holdings. They own a company and hold seats on the board of directors. As such, maybe they get compensation through stock options, etc. The details just arent clear to me. Maybe I would understand it better if I understood the mechanism by which US corporations are sheltering overseas.
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 :-)