Current:Home > MyThe Supreme Court upholds a tax on foreign income over a challenge backed by business interests-LoTradeCoin
The Supreme Court upholds a tax on foreign income over a challenge backed by business interests
View Date:2024-12-23 21:02:27
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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, by a 7-2 vote, left in place a provision of a 2017 tax law that is expected to generate $340 billion, mainly from the foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations that parked money abroad to shield it from U.S. 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. Such assets now get taxed only when they are sold.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his majority opinion that “nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity.”
Underscoring the limited nature of the court’s ruling, Kavanaugh said as he read a summary of his opinion in the courtroom, “the precise and very narrow question” of the 2017 law “is the only question we answer.”
The court ruled in the case of Charles and Kathleen Moore, of Redmond, Washington. They challenged a $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.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote in dissent that the Moores paid taxes on an investment “that never yielded them a penny.” Under the 16th Amendment, Thomas wrote, the only income that can be taxed is “income realized by the taxpayer.”
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, Kavanaugh noted, echoing the argument made by the Biden administration.
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.
Alito voted with the majority, but did not join Kavanaugh’s opinion. Instead, he joined a separate opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett wrote that the issues in the case are more complicated than Kavanaugh suggests.
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. U.S., 22-800.
___
Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
veryGood! (6)
Related
- Kyle Richards Swears This Holiday Candle Is the Best Scent Ever and She Uses It All Year
- Blood tests offered in New Mexico amid query into ‘forever chemical’ contamination at military bases
- A suburban Chicago man has been sentenced in the hit-and-run death of a retired police officer
- Auburn fans celebrate Nick Saban's retirement in true Auburn fashion: By rolling Toomer's Corner
- Reese Witherspoon's Daughter Ava Phillippe Introduces Adorable New Family Member
- New Tennessee House rules seek to discourage more uproar after highly publicized expulsions
- Powerful storms bring heavy snow, rain, tornadoes, flooding to much of U.S., leave several dead
- Nick Saban is retiring from Alabama: A breakdown of his seven overall national titles
- Tech consultant testifies that ‘bad joke’ led to deadly clash with Cash App founder Bob Lee
- Women make up majority of law firm associates for the first time: Real change is slow.
Ranking
- Dick Van Dyke says he 'fortunately' won't be around for Trump's second presidency
- Auburn fans celebrate Nick Saban's retirement in true Auburn fashion: By rolling Toomer's Corner
- Judge rescinds permission for Trump to give his own closing argument at his civil fraud trial
- Tickets to see Iowa's Caitlin Clark are going for more than $1,000. What would you pay?
- Atlanta man dies in shootout after police chase that also kills police dog
- Powerful storms bring heavy snow, rain, tornadoes, flooding to much of U.S., leave several dead
- Judge rescinds permission for Trump to give his own closing argument at his civil fraud trial
- Ancient letter written by Roman emperor leads archaeologists to monumental discovery in Italy
Recommendation
-
Colts' Kenny Moore II ridicules team's effort in loss to Bills
-
At CES 2024, tech companies are transforming the kitchen with AI and robots that do the cooking
-
Missouri lawsuit accusing China of hoarding pandemic gear can proceed, appeals panel says
-
Program to provide cash for pregnant women in Flint, Michigan, and families with newborns
-
Deebo Samuel explains 'out of character' sideline altercation with 49ers long snapper, kicker
-
Bernice King says mother Coretta Scott King 'wasn't a prop' after Jonathan Majors comments
-
Walmart says it will use AI to restock customers' fridges
-
Panel of judges says a First Amendment challenge to Maryland’s digital ad tax should be considered