Moore v. the United States technically deals with a different issue involving a couple that was taxed by the IRS for unrealized gains overseas. It could, however, end up affecting all Americans with a new precedent being set for unrealized gains taxation.
"This could have the biggest fiscal policy effects of any court decision in the modern era," commented Matt Gardner from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
Last week, Gardner's ITEP colleague Steve Wamhoff also commented that Moore v. the United States "could become the most important tax case of the century," warning that a "broad ruling could destabilize the tax system, enrich many profitable corporations and widen existing economic and racial inequalities."
"Entire sections of the tax code are unconstitutional if this is unconstitutional," says Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is seeking to impose new wealth taxes on greedy billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.
"I can’t imagine the Supreme Court wants to give the wealthiest people on earth billions in tax cuts, particularly at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in the Supreme Court."
(Related: Learn more about the Supreme Court case and what it means for you and your family in terms of unrealized "paper" gains on assets.)
America ruled by massive taxation without representation
The case arises from Donald Trump's 2017 tax "reform" agenda, which included a one-time "Mandatory Repatriation Tax," or MRT, on U.S. taxpayers with retained earnings from their holdings in foreign corporations. Large corporations like Apple and Microsoft bear the biggest tax load from MRT, but so do individuals who own more than 10 percent of a foreign corporation.
The case itself centers around Charles and Kathleen Moore, who invested in an India-based company that is non-taxable in the U.S. The Moores were charged $14,279 under the MRT, though, which prompted them to sue the U.S. government in pursuit of a refund.
The Moores' argument is that the MRT is unconstitutional because income must first be "realized" before it can be taxed. The case is backed by right-wing legal organizations like the Koch brood's Americans for Tax Reform and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"If the Court finds the MRT unconstitutional, it could cost the U.S. government an estimated $338 billion in lost revenue, further increasing annual deficits and the nation's overall debt," reports Common Dreams.
"Indeed experts estimate a sweeping ruling in the Moore's favor could cost the government trillions over the next decade."
Again, depending on the direction the case takes, it could undermine the effort by Sens. Warren and Wyden to hold greedy billionaires accountable by making them pay their fair share of taxes.
"Suffice it to say that the issue dates back to the original 1789 Constitution which states that 'direct taxes' must be 'apportioned among the several states,'" Common Dreams further reports about the case.
"Historically, this was a sop to slave-owning states who could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when calculating how much money could be raised from each state. In the 19th century, The Supreme Court held that income taxes were unconstitutional unless equally apportioned among each state which was practically impossible."
"In response, the 16th Amendment was enacted in 1909 providing that Congress may tax 'income' from 'whatever source derived.' The 16th Amendment did not define 'income' or 'source.'"
More of the latest news about the takedown of America by corrupt, greedy globalists can be found at Globalism.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
