Posted on 06/26/2023 12:50:02 PM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court announced Monday it would take up a case considering whether Congress can tax income before it is received.
The case, Charles G. Moore et ux. v. United States, stems from a Washington state couple’s 2019 lawsuit against the government for a nearly $15,000 tax bill imposed on their small investment in an overseas company, from which they never earned a profit. It considers whether taxes on unrealized gains are legal under the 16th Amendment, which enables Congress to tax incomes “without apportionment among the several States.”
Hank Adler, Burra Executive Professor of Accounting at Chapman University, previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation the Moores’ case is “the most important tax case in almost 100 years.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
SCOTUS is unqualified in this area.
When it comes to taxes they are all conflicted, much like they claim to be when it comes to National Elections.
“The Supreme Court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2023-24 term, involving educational benefits for veterans and a rare appearance by the 16th Amendment. At the same time, the justices took two cases in which they had granted review off their docket. They dismissed one case, in which they had been asked to review a district court’s order requiring Louisiana’s legislature to draw a new congressional map with an additional majority-Black district, while they sent a dispute over the right of individual members of Congress to bring a lawsuit seeking information back to the court of appeals for it to dismiss the case.
In Moore v. United States, the justices agreed to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act known as the “mandatory repatriation tax,” which required U.S. taxpayers who owned shares in foreign corporations to pay a one-time tax on their share of the corporation’s earnings, even if those earnings were reinvested in the corporation and the taxpayers did not receive them.”
[snip]
“In the second case, Rudisill v. McDonough, the justices agreed to weigh in on a dispute over the interpretation of the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, both of which provide educational benefits to veterans.”
If unrealized gains are taxable, there will never be another dollar invested.
What does the tax law say about this? Are they saying that the taxpayers should have “accrued” income on their tax returns, and paid tax on that?
Taxes on accrued income is very common on business tax returns, but didn’t think that would apply to individuals who are cash basis taxpayers.
Of course, the entire IRS code is gigantic, and some tax specialists say that there are contradictions and confusion in the tax code. So this may be one such area.
"I see you might get something later. Give it to me now."
This is a trial balloon. If the leftists win, the real target will be all those unrealized gains in the trillions that make up our 401K and IRA accounts that they can’t get to until we turn 73 and are forced to make required minimum distributions.
Can you offset unrealized capital gains with unrealized capital losses?
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in a profitable situation on a stock only to have it drop in value. So, let’s say I have a profit in a stock, and I get taxed, but by the time the tax is due, and I sell it I’m in a losing position and have less in it than when I bought it. Do I still owe taxes on a profit I never saw? Then there are guys like Bill Gates and Elon Musk whose entire value is tied up in a stock. If they get forced to sell, then the value may drop because they had to sell so much it affects the price.
IRS: "Well, its income you would make if you were Elon Musk."
Income taxes are slavery disguised. If all the fruits of your labor is owned by someone else, that is the very definition of enslavement. In other words, a tax rate of 100%. Any lesser percentage is merely a matter of degree.
“our 401K and IRA accounts that they can’t get to until we turn 73 and are forced to make required minimum distributions.
“
Convert them to Roths before they increase the tax rates.
How can that even be a question?
bttt - “How can that even be a question?”
not to mention your “gains” on your home.
Investments base values needs to be adjusted at least annually for the actual Inflation Rate, not that bogus gov’t number.
The Founding Fathers banned income taxes because they knew it’s how tyrants get their funding.
Investments’ basis values need to be adjusted at least annually for the Actual Inflation Rate, not that bogus gov’t number.
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.