A Supreme Court dispute over a $15,000 IRS bill may be aimed at a never-enacted tax on billionaires
A Supreme Court dispute over a $15,000 IRS bill may be aimed at a never-enacted tax on billionaires
Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they believe is unconstitutional.
Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.
The couple from Redmond, Washington, claim they had to pay the money because of their investment in an Indian company from which, as Charles Moore, 62, said in a sworn statement, they “have never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment.”
But significant parts of the story they have told to reach this point seem at odds with public records.
The Moores are the public face of a high court case backed by business and conservative political interests that could call into question other parts of the U.S. tax code and rule out a much-discussed but never-enacted tax on wealth. The case is set for arguments on Dec. 5.
Luckily the SCOTUS justices have no ties to the wealthy and are such excellent, impartial arbiters of blind justice.
I'm sure we all have full faith in them.
/s
Cool, I've never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment just from owning my house. Are my property taxes unconstitutional too?
That's absolutely a goal of many Republicans.
In Texas there was a guy running for governor in the primaries last cycle with "Eliminate Property Taxes" as the central message of his campaign.
The thing about property taxes is they go to municipal governments, counties, and schools. Lots of cities have laws protecting water, trees, workers, etc that the Republicans hate. By eliminating property taxes, they could gut municipal governments in Democratic areas and public schools.
Local property taxes are a way to assess your share of tax burden based on something approximating your share of enjoyment of what's provided by those tax dollars. I.e., by owning property somewhere, you benefit from that location's fire fighters, police, roads, etc. Investment in a foreign property would have nothing to do with consumption of local government services/infrastructure.
The purpose of it doesn't really determine whether or not the taxing authority has the authority to levy tax or not. This is all a fight to try to stop taxation of capital until/unless it is sold,at which point capital gains taxes apply. If it's unconstitutional to tax that equity in a foreign property/enterprise solely because it isn't income (distribution, dividend, other payment) then I don't see how it would be constitutional to tax a stake or equity in real estate.
Of course, I'm being slightly facetious here. Obviously we have a long history of taxing property, so I don't see how logically this tax is unconstitutional either. In the same vein, the US also taxes foreign income that has no real nexus in the US, so if that's fine I fail to see how they can't tax a citizen's foreign assets.
Property tax is state and local, IRS is federal.
Different constitutions
Bold of you to think they won't say yes.
Democrats should just ignore any SCOTUS rulings they disagree with from now on. The institution has lost all legitimacy.
"Let them enforce it."
I'm not sure Andrew Jackson is the role model we should be elevating.
Broken clock moment, but agree there are probably better choices of quotes with less questionable speakers.
Broken clock moment.
Broken clock moment, but agree there are probably better choices of quotes with less questionable speakers.
Broken clock moment, but agree there are probably better choices of quotes with less questionable speakers.
The choice was intentional, the gist being, "Democrats can be Machiavellian, too."*
*Yes, I know what party Jackson was.
Just because they "have never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment" doesn't mean they haven't benefited from it. The way truly rich people get their money isn't by a simple paycheck or even by selling stock or getting dividends (though this is part of it). They own a shitload of "stuff" and can leverage that "stuff" to get loans to pay for other things. Banks will give preferential loans to a person who has a billion in stock, since they are confident that person will be able to pay it back. The loans aren't considered income, so they aren't taxed.
Much like leveraging your home equity for a loan to pay for whatever, these people can leverage owning that stock to get a loan to pay for whatever. And if we have to pay property taxes on homes we own to ensure the homes are safe (roads, police, fire dept, etc), then I can see the validity of having a tax on stocks we own to pay for the resources to ensure those stocks are safe (regulators, safe computer networks, insurance, etc).
I feel like this is a big component of inflation that no one talks about. The stocks they use as collateral aren't worth what they claim, since any attempt to sell all of those stocks would immediately drastically decrease their value. The loans then act as a sort of money press, for value that doesn't really exist. That then drives up prices.
The stock prices are often artificially inflated through buybacks as well. It's a brilliant system and I can't possibly see how it will end poorly for everyone but those responsible for it. /S
They need to start taxing collateral over a few hundred thousand as income. It's an easy loophole to close, but of course it won't be.
Oh look another bullshit case that the facts seem super sketchy on aimed at legislating from the bench. The obvious goal is to alter tax law in favor of the rich using blatant tax shelters.
Not surprised it's Redmond