Current:Home > InvestThe 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 22:56:50
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! (65869)
Related
- Lions QB Jared Goff, despite 5 interceptions, dared to become cold-blooded
- NFL draft winners, losers: Bears rise, Kirk Cousins falls after first round
- Oregon man sentenced to 50 years in the 1978 killing of a teenage girl in Alaska
- A Giant Plastics Chemical Recycling Plant Planned for Pennsylvania Died After Two Years. What Happened?
- Just Eat Takeaway sells Grubhub for $650 million, just 3 years after buying the app for $7.3 billion
- Former Virginia hospital medical director acquitted of sexually abusing ex-patients
- Michigan man charged with manslaughter in deadly building explosion
- Former NFL Player Korey Cunningham Dead at Age 28
- November 2024 full moon this week is a super moon and the beaver moon
- Myth of ‘superhuman strength’ in Black people persists in deadly encounters with police
Ranking
- Rachael Ray Details Getting Bashed Over Decision to Not Have Kids
- 'You think we're all stupid?' IndyCar reacts to Team Penske's rules violations
- Tennessee governor signs bills to allow armed teachers nearly a year after deadly Nashville shooting
- Chasing ‘Twisters’ and collaborating with ‘tornado fanatic’ Steven Spielberg
- Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger welcome their first son together
- How Taylor Swift Is Showing Support for Travis Kelce's New Teammate Xavier Worthy
- Most drivers will pay $15 to enter busiest part of Manhattan starting June 30
- Jeannie Mai alleges abuse, child neglect by Jeezy in new divorce case filing
Recommendation
-
Stock market today: Asian shares meander, tracking Wall Street’s mixed finish as dollar surges
-
Taylor Swift releases YouTube short that appears to have new Eras Tour dances
-
2024 NFL draft picks: Team-by-team look at all 257 selections
-
Some urge boycott of Wyoming as rural angst over wolves clashes with cruel scenes of one in a bar
-
Early Black Friday Deals: 70% Off Apple, Dyson, Tarte, Barefoot Dreams, Le Creuset & More + Free Shipping
-
Biden says he's happy to debate Trump before 2024 election
-
Flight attendant indicted in attempt to record teen girl in airplane bathroom
-
Elisabeth Moss reveals she broke her back on set, kept filming her new FX show ‘The Veil'