Posted on 08/09/2023 11:47:18 PM PDT by RandFan
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear one of the most important tax cases in history, which could either greenlight the constitutionality of an economically disastrous wealth tax, or destroy critical parts of the U.S. tax system.
Unless the justices take a middle road and define the 16th Amendment according to the history and traditions of the U.S. tax system, the case will result in bad law and worse outcomes.
The case (Moore v. United States) concerns the constitutionality of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA). The act imposed a mandatory repatriation tax on pre-2018 profits that companies and some U.S. shareholders stored abroad. Previously, foreign business profits went untaxed until they returned to U.S. shareholders. But under mandatory repatriation tax, passed as part of Republicans’ comprehensive international tax reform, profits were taxed even if shareholders never received the income.
The revenue from the mandatory tax helped raise an estimated $339 billion that contributed to offsetting other individual and corporate tax cuts, as well as broader international tax reform in the 2017 tax cuts.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Many "tax prostestors" for example Irwin Schiff have learned this. He died in prison. It's not a good idea.
They will never rule against the government collecting taxes I believe even if it's technically unconstitutional ....
It sucks!
Ping
is this really about tax issues of dividens
that are reinvested?
I want to see proof it was actually ratified. Little tough to believe we would do that to ourselves
How is this any different then me being forced to pay taxes on “profit” my S corp made, without me ever seeing a dime?
Even being made to pay taxes on Mutual Fund “Capital Gains” is total BS.
Even being made to pay taxes on Mutual Fund “Capital Gains” is total BS.
Especially since a 3% tax on tea was enough to make you angry.
Do you suppose we are more oppressed than the founding fathers?
Does anyone else remember the proposed simple income tax form:
1) Enter the amount you earned ____________
2) Send it in
Are we there yet???
Unquestionably.
Prior to the Founding of America, most citizens of the continent only had to promise fealty to the King and pay your taxes.
Prior to the Revolution, the citizen here paid between 1 and 2 shillings/year. You guys didn’t have representation in the Parliament, which was the bigger complaint.
Didn’t they have to quarter British soldiers too? (The quartering act) I imagine that probably didn’t make them happy either.
I guess they did that as well.
rax ping
We are significantly more oppressed and we are also substantially more spineless
F Treason John Roberts.
Almost as much the destroyer of the United States as b Hussein Osama.
It’s “ the Hill,” so I’ll take its characterization of the issue with a grain of salt, but if a SCOTUS decision could really do all that, There’s no way Roberts and possibly Kavanaugh and Barrett won’t vote with the left.
Chief Justice Roberts is not going to allow anything to rock the boat with the U.S. tax code. Even if an opinion was written given the plaintiff relief requested, it would be so narrowly written that it would only apply in a very limited way so as not to interfere with the tax code itself.
Correct. Roberts is the problem on this. The others might be sympathetic
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.