STATE TIMES NEWS
WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a tax on foreign income over a challenge backed by business and anti-regulatory interests, declining their invitation to weigh in on a broader, never-enacted tax on wealth.
The justices left in place a provision of a 2017 tax law that is expected to generate USD 340 billion, mainly from the foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations that parked money abroad to shield it from US taxes.
The law, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump, includes a provision that applies to companies that are owned by Americans but do their business in foreign countries. It imposes a one-time tax on investors’ shares of profits that have not been passed along to them, to offset other tax benefits.
But the larger significance of the ruling is what it didn’t do. The case attracted outsize attention because some groups allied with the Washington couple who brought the case argued that the challenged provision is similar to a wealth tax, which would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans but to their assets, like stock holdings, that now get taxed only when they are sold.
The court ruled in the case of Charles and Kathleen Moore, of Redmond, Washington. They challenged a USD 15,000 tax bill based on Charles Moore’s investment in an Indian company, arguing that the tax violates the 16th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, the amendment allows the federal government to impose an income tax on Americans.
Moore said in a sworn statement that he never received any money from the company, KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Ltd. A ruling for the Moores could have called into question other provisions of the tax code and threatened losses to the U.S. Treasury of several trillion dollars, the Biden administration told the court.
The case also had kicked up ethical concerns and raised questions about the story the Moores’ lawyers told in court filings. Justice Samuel Alito rejected calls from Senate Democrats to step away from the case because of his ties to David Rivkin, a lawyer who is representing the Moores.
Public documents show that Charles Moore’s involvement with the company, including serving as a director for five years, is far more extensive than court filings indicate. The case is Moore v. US, 22-800.
