Moore v. United States (2024)

Last updated

Moore v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 5, 2023
Decided June 20, 2024
Full case nameCharles G. Moore, et ux. v. United States
Docket no. 22-800
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Questions presented
Whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.
Holding
The Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson
ConcurrenceJackson
ConcurrenceBarrett (in judgment), joined by Alito
DissentThomas, joined by Gorsuch

Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of the federal government to tax unrealized gains as income. The Supreme Court upheld the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT).

Contents

Background

Charles and Kathleen Moore invested $40,000 in an Indian business named KisanKraft in 2005, in exchange for 11% of the company's equity. KisanKraft is a controlled foreign corporation. The company has made a profit every year of its existence, and rather than distributing its earnings to shareholders, it has reinvested profits in the business. Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, income tax on such earnings generally did not have to be paid until they were distributed to shareholders. The 2017 law changed the corporate and Subpart F tax regime to focus on domestic profits, and imposed a one-time mandatory repatriation tax on profits held overseas. The Moores paid the $14,729 in tax owed and challenged the law in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington as violating the Sixteenth Amendment's requirement that income be realized before it can be taxed, as set forth in Eisner v. Macomber (1920).

While the plaintiffs claimed to be uninvolved with the company and only small investors, Charles Moore actually served as a director for five years and they made additional investments totaling $150,000. [1] [2]

The district court ruled for the government, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. An appeal to rehear the case en banc was denied.

Supreme Court

The Moores appealed the Ninth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court on February 21, 2023. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 26, 2023. [3]

In the summer of 2023, Justice Samuel Alito was interviewed for The Wall Street Journal by David B. Rivkin, an attorney in this case. [4] After publication, Senator Dick Durbin wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts, expressing his opinion that the court should "take appropriate steps" to ensure Alito's recusal from this case. [5] In an order list released on September 8, 2023, [6] Alito rejected Durbin's accusation that his verdict would be swayed by his contact with Rivkin, and he refused to recuse himself. [7]

Oral argument before the Supreme Court took place on December 5, 2023. The ruling was handed down on June 20, 2024.

Ruling

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, ruled that the tax fell within the authority of Congress under the Constitution. Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. Justice Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito. [8] In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas wrote that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax should have been struck down as unconstitutional because it taxes unrealized capital gains, which is not permitted by the 16th Amendment. [9]

Analysis: relationship to wealth tax

The Supreme Court could have used the case to rule on the wider question whether a wealth tax is constitutional. However, the majority opinion sidestepped that question by explicitly adding a footnote stating that the opinion "does not address … taxes on holdings, wealth, or net worth". However, journalist Ian Millhiser disagreed, stating that "the opinion includes a bonanza of loaded language that any competent tax lawyer can seize upon to protect their richest clients from wealth taxes." [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United States</span> Highest court of jurisdiction in the US

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that turn on questions of U.S. constitutional or federal law. It also has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." The court holds the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Alito</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2006 (born 1950)

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated to the high court by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served on it since January 31, 2006. After Antonin Scalia, Alito is the second Italian American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official, administrative officer or other decision-maker. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or decision-maker must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned, and more likely that there is due process.

Leonard Anthony Leo is an American lawyer and conservative legal activist. He was the longtime vice president of the Federalist Society and is currently, along with Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the organization's board of directors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in Wisconsin. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over original actions, appeals from lower courts, and regulation or administration of the practice of law in Wisconsin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination</span> United States Supreme Court nomination

On October 31, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Alito's nomination was confirmed by a 58–42 vote of the United States Senate on January 31, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roberts Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court since 2005

The Roberts Court is the time since 2005 during which the Supreme Court of the United States has been led by John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts succeeded William Rehnquist as Chief Justice after Rehnquist's death.

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant. Carrigan challenged his censure in court and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor, claiming that casting his vote was protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that voting by a public official on a public matter is not First Amendment speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, due to the agency's refusal to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that non-profit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state. The case was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that California's requirement burdened the donors' First Amendment rights, was not narrowly tailored, and was constitutionally invalid.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022), was a case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which limited the amount of money that candidates could be paid on personal loans to their campaign.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the City of Boston's program that allowed groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City Hall. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that the city violated a Christian group's free speech rights when it denied their request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, without presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States</span> Code of conduct for the highest court of the United States, released November 13, 2023

The Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States was issued on November 13, 2023, to set "ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct" of the members of the Supreme Court. It is the first time in its history that the court has adopted a code of conduct.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2023 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States has so far handed down multiple per curiam opinions during its 2023 term, which began October 2, 2023, and will conclude October 6, 2024.

References

  1. Stern, Mark Joseph (June 20, 2024). "Why Brett Kavanaugh Shot Down a Fake Case That Would Have Blown Up the Tax Code". Slate. ISSN   1091-2339 . Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  2. Marimow, Ann. "This lawsuit could disrupt the U.S. tax system. Key facts are in dispute". Washington Post.
  3. Howe, Amy (June 26, 2023). "Justices take up cases on veterans' education benefits and 16th Amendment". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 27, 2023.
  4. Schonfeld, Zach (August 31, 2023). "Thomas, Alito go on the attack over Supreme Court ethics". The Hill. Retrieved December 5, 2023.
  5. Schonfeld, Zach (September 8, 2023). "Alito rejects calls to recuse from tax case after Wall Street Journal interviews". The Hill. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  6. "Order List (09/08/2023)" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  7. Chung, Andrew (September 8, 2023). "US Supreme Court's Alito rejects recusal in tax case". Reuters. Retrieved September 8, 2023.
  8. VanSickle, Abbie; Tankersley, Jim (June 20, 2024). "Supreme Court Upholds Trump-Era Tax Provision". New York Times.
  9. Quinn, Melissa (June 20, 2024). "Supreme Court upholds Trump-era tax on foreign earnings, skirting disruptive ruling". CBS News.
  10. Millhiser, Ian (June 20, 2024). "The Supreme Court's new tax decision is great news for billionaires". Vox.