Rocci Stucci Media

Biden Admin About To Get Tested By Another SCOTUS Ruling In Moore vs. U.S. Case

The Supreme Court is set to make a key decision that could potentially affect President Joe Biden’s proposed wealth tax, a move which could have major implications for the future of taxation in the US.

The case, Moore v. United States, concerns whether the federal government can impose taxes on stock gains – something which would be significant for billionaires and other wealthy individuals who currently do not pay tax on their unrealized capital gains.

The Sixteenth Amendment allows the federal government to impose income taxes without apportioning them among the states; however, courts have long limited those taxes to “income” as defined by law.

The Washington Examiner reported:

Under the 2017 tax reform law, they learned that they were subjected to a mandatory repatriation tax of $14,729. They paid that amount and then filed suit seeing a refund and claiming that the tax violates the constitution’s apportionment clause. The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states.” That means that the federal government cannot tax stock gains, which are the source of wealth for many billionaires unless those stocks are sold.

Progressive leaders have for years railed against this state of affairs, with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) supporting a tax on wealth itself rather than direct income. An appeals court ruled that the Moores could be taxed this way, saying “there is no constitutional prohibition against Congress attributing a corporation’s income pro-rata to its shareholder.” But the Supreme Court could reverse that ruling, rendering the repatriation tax and future wealth-based taxes off-limits at the federal level.

Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state-based couple, made an investment into an Indian company in 2005 and were subsequently subjected to a mandatory repatriation tax of 14,729 dollars.

The Moores filed suit claiming that this tax violates the constitution’s apportionment clause; meanwhile, progressive leaders such as Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) support taxing wealth itself rather than direct income.

Despite these efforts from progressive lawmakers across the country, Thomas Berry of the Cato Institute is not optimistic about Biden’s proposal being successful in court: “You can never predict for certain,” says Berry “but I think justices will be concerned about setting a new precedent here and opening up the door to lot of taxes that we’ve never seen before at federal level.”

Biden has also been pushing for his billionaire minimum tax proposal since early 2021 – something which he claims will ensure no billionaire pays less than school teachers or firefighters – but it remains unclear if it will pass into law given its current odds with a Republican-controlled House.

Hearings are scheduled to start in October this year so we won’t have too long until we know more about how this case will be decided – one way or another it could have huge implications for our nation’s taxation system going forward. Until then all we can do is watch closely and wait.

Author

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

16 Responses

  1. I believe the Moore’s are correct. It is not income until you sell the bonds or stocks or whatever you invested in and actually make a profit. If I bought a 1960 Buick in 1960, and still have it, and the value went down for several years, then started going back up. If I paid $2,500 for that Buick in 1960 and it is now valued at $15,000, I have not made a profit or gained any income from that original purchase. But these liberal idiots think I now owe a tax bill on the $12,500 gain in value, even though I have not yet actually made that $12,500 profit. In my personal opinion, only a moron would think I owe the IRS for that non existent $12,500 “profit”.

  2. So, if I understand the Democrats argument…. When you buy a dozen eggs, Biden thinks you should be taxed on the price of 12 hens.
    They don’t just want to count your chickens before they’re hatched they want to tax them at their future value as livestock at market.

  3. If the stocks go down, do you get money back? Whoever heard of taxing a profit when you haven’t made it yet?

    1. Getting taxes back (with interest) when values go down is a giant unknown. I hope the SCOTUS addresses that issue.

  4. It doesn’t mater what SCOTUS “rules.” Commrade Biden has already proven that he will do whatever he wants. He just forgave 39 was it BILLION student loans after SCOTUS ruled against it. It’s pretty clear — there is a dictator in the White House, and nobody is going to stop him from doing whatever he wants — AND all the news “media” AND “congress” are going to support whatever that is. We the people are screwed.

    1. True! Biden doesn’t care about how SCOTUS rules. He still pursues the Left’s agenda, with lies, no accountability, and discarding the rule of law.

    2. Well said DIZ. I predicted that Dictator Joe would rule by E.O. after the 2022 midterms no-matter what. Looks like that is what he is doing! What I don’t understand though, is why Lyin Joe is so obsessed with raising taxes …. he doesn’t seem to care about OUR $32T deficit, so why not just let it go to $50T ??? ( I “almost” do hope that he keeps raising taxes though. Americans will see the light and vote, and/or impeach this fool, and the rest of his incompetent Administration out of office! ) PLEASE America, wake up and smell the coffee. Dems are destroying our Nation.

  5. Considering how corrupt the Biden family is, he has a lot of nerve trying to tax people to death.

  6. The problem is not with Biden its is the people running the show. Biden has trouble finding his rear end at noon on a bright sunny day.

  7. Just another loophole. I’m not a stockholder except thru my 401k. Firstly, the stock market is a gamble, sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. That’s the chance you take as an investor. You purchase a particular stock at one price and over the course of 1 year the price of the stock doubles. You made a profit. That should be taxed. The next year your stock goes down, no tax levied but I’m sure your take a deduction for your loss. The third year, whatever the starting price of your stock is on Jan !st is the starting point, if it goes up by the end of the year you make a profit and are taxed on that profit, if not, another tax loss deduction. This seems simple to me. But, the bottom line is, if the government would stop grossly overspending and borrowing money it does not have, and stay within their budget, none of this would really matter……now would it

  8. Taxing someone, on income they MIGHT realize at some point in the future CAN’T be right with the constitution…

  • Decide Right

  • On Key

    Related Posts