Moore v. United States (2024): Difference between revisions
m →External links: adding a citation to an amicus brief as well as an external link Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
m →External links: Adding new citation discussing the early stages of this issue in this case Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
* Amicus brief filed by Professor Calvin Johnson in ''Moore v. United States'' (2024) available: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-800/279255/20230908232057992_43920%20pdf%20Amicus%20Moore%20as%20submitted.pdf SCOTUS Blog] |
* Amicus brief filed by Professor Calvin Johnson in ''Moore v. United States'' (2024) available: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-800/279255/20230908232057992_43920%20pdf%20Amicus%20Moore%20as%20submitted.pdf SCOTUS Blog] |
||
* Ben Willis, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxnotes/2021/08/23/realizing-deemed-income-from-holey-new-taxes/?sh=7547d1b279a1 Realizing Deemed Income From ‘Holey’ New Taxes] ''Forbes'' (2021). Retrieved 15 September 2023. |
|||
{{US16thAmendment}} |
{{US16thAmendment}} |
||
Revision as of 13:14, 15 September 2023
| Moore v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | Charles G. Moore, et ux. v. United States |
| Docket no. | 22-800 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XVI Tax Cuts and Jobs Act | |
Moore v. United States (Docket 22–800) is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of the federal government to tax unrealized gains as income.
Background
Charles and Kathleen Moore invested $40,000 in an Indian business named KisanKraft in 2005, in exchange for 11% of the company's equity. KisanKraft is a controlled foreign corporation. The company has made a profit every year of its existence, and rather than distributing its earnings to shareholders, it has reinvested profits in the business. Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, income tax on such earnings generally did not have to be paid until they were distributed to shareholders. The 2017 law changed the corporate and Subpart F tax regime to focus on domestic profits, and imposed a one-time mandatory repatriation tax on profits held overseas. The Moores paid the $14,729 in tax owed and challenged the law in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington as violating the Sixteenth Amendment's requirement that income be realized before it can be taxed, as set forth in Eisner v. Macomber (1920). The district court ruled for the government, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, joined by three other judges, dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Supreme Court
The Moores filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on February 21, 2023. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 26, 2023.[1]
In an order list released on September 8, 2023,[2] Justice Alito addressed the letter sent to Chief Justice John Roberts by Senator Dick Durbin urging the court to "take appropriate steps" to ensure Alito's recusal in this case.[3] These comments came after Alito was interviewed by a lawyer, David B. Rivkin, who is an attorney in this case. Alito rejected the accusation that his verdict would be swayed by the attorney who interviewed him and refused to recuse himself from this case.[4]
References
- ^ Howe, Amy (June 26, 2023). "Justices take up cases on veterans' education benefits and 16th Amendment". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 27, 2023.
- ^ "Order List (09/08/2023)" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
- ^ Schonfeld, Zach (September 8, 2023). "Alito rejects calls to recuse from tax case after Wall Street Journal interviews". The Hill. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
- ^ Chung, Andrew (September 8, 2023). "US Supreme Court's Alito rejects recusal in tax case". Reuters. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
External links
- Text of Moore v. United States, 601 U.S. ___ (2024) is available from: Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Amicus brief filed by Professor Calvin Johnson in Moore v. United States (2024) available: SCOTUS Blog
- Ben Willis, Realizing Deemed Income From ‘Holey’ New Taxes Forbes (2021). Retrieved 15 September 2023.