Posted on 12/03/2023 11:47:01 AM PST by thegagline
A case that could punch holes in the federal tax code heads to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The court will hear arguments in Moore v. U.S., which challenges a piece of the 2017 tax law that imposed a one-time levy on profits that companies had accumulated outside the U.S. But its implications could reach much further, providing the justices an opportunity to define what Congress can tax under the Constitution—and what it can’t.
The case, brought by a Washington state couple seeking a $14,729 refund, raises a seemingly simple question: Must income be “realized,” or received, before it can be taxed?
Charles and Kathleen Moore argue that when the law passed, they hadn’t realized income from their investment in an India-based company and thus couldn’t be taxed. Some conservative groups have backed them, seeing a chance to block future Congresses from taxing wealth or unrealized capital gains. A broad ruling for the Moores could create a constitutional bar against some popular Democratic proposals to tax the superrich.
Tax lawyers and the government say a sweeping ruling could also upend many longstanding rules affecting partnerships, multinational companies and bond investors. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who helped write the 2017 tax law, warned in September that the case could damage a third of the tax code. ***
Before then, U.S. companies paid foreign taxes on foreign profits but could defer any U.S. taxes until they brought earnings back home. Republicans switched to a system with a minimum annual U.S. tax on foreign profits and tax-free repatriation.
In that transition, to deal with 30 years of profits companies had accumulated overseas that hadn’t faced U.S. taxation, Congress imposed a one-time levy. ***
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Is the 2017 tax not an income tax governed by the 16th Amendment?
Should the graft that a politician could pull in be taxed before the graft occurs?
Can the refrigerator, where you store said graft, be deducted as a business expense?
What is the meaning of "realized" in terms of benefits? Illegal aliens reap many benefits given to them, such as shelter, food, medical treatments, money and other benefits. Should they be taxed before realizing the cash value of those benefits? If citizens create necessary wealth in order to shelter and feed themselves but have to pay a large tax out of their acquired wealth, shouldn't illegal aliens be taxed on their acquired wealth? Seems to me that ordinary citizens get royally screwed by our government (including getting screwed by politicians pulling in graft).
Well, hell yes. Tax the illegal immigrants on the cost of their benefits. Since the benefits are provided by government, the cost of the benefits is probably worth 10X the value of the benefits. Maybe the taxes on the cost of government benefits could be like a perpetual motion machine and pay for its self forever.
If I buy something, and later sell it, I have a solid basis for determining gain. The difference is known, the capital gain is clear, and the tax on that gain.
Suppose, though, that I buy something and haven’t sold it. What the government is arguing is that they should be allowed to estimate its sale price and then to tax what they estimate its capital gain would have been, were it sold.
Suppose, for example, you’re a farmer. You bought a couple of hundred acres when the price was reasonable. Creaping urbanization has driven up property values, and you’re paying higher property taxes because of that. But you’re not seeing increased income because of the increased value. But that’s what the government is trying to do - to treat what they think you would have gotten were you to sell as income.
Until you actually do sell, it’s not income.
I bought my home over three decades ago and according to our tax assessor, it is worth over 5x that value and I am being taxed on that amount.
Suppose, for example, you’re a farmer. You bought a couple of hundred acres when the price was reasonable. Creaping urbanization has driven up property values, and you’re paying higher property taxes because of that. But you’re not seeing increased income because of the increased value. But that’s what the government is trying to do - to treat what they think you would have gotten were you to sell as income.
Until you actually do sell, it’s not income.
Actually, this is what they are doing to President Trump.
The government is trying to determine the value of his assets.
Definitely not above the board.
courts actually trying to undo the corrupt unlawful tax code, court pile of excrement? never happen.
I was about to say the same thing. Cases like Trumps would be narfed if the Supreme’s do the right thing.
Since our Social Security benefits, which we paid into, are taxed, then any kind of welfare benefit should be taxed, especially the outrageous handouts to illegals.
You’re paying property taxes on the assessed value. The increase is not taxed as income.
“You’re paying property taxes on the assessed value. The increase is not taxed as income.”
But they are essentially claiming they could indeed tax it as income.
They want to tax as income money you’ve not yet received.
“Until you actually do sell, it’s not income.”
Agree. If this were made law then unrealized losses should also be entered as losses in your tax computation.
“If this were made law then unrealized losses should also be entered as losses in your tax computation.”
Meaning everything I buy that can’t be sold at a profit can be subtracted from my income for tax purposes?
They’d never allow that.
More info about the case here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/22-800
I believe oral arguments before the court are on Tuesday. The transcript for same will be found here once they are posted: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2023
Thank you
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.