MYNORTHWEST POLITICS

U.S. Supreme Court rules against Redmond couple challenging foreign income tax

Jun 20, 2024, 9:02 AM | Updated: 10:44 am

moore redmond washington...

Visitors pose for photographs outside the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, June 18, 2024, in Washington. (Photo: Jose Luis Magana, Associated Press)

(Photo: Jose Luis Magana, Associated Press)

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.

More from the high court: Supreme Court, siding with Starbucks, makes it harder for NLRB to win court orders in labor disputes

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. 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.

Dave Ross on Supreme Court ruling against pro-life challenge: What’s next for the Christian Nationalists?

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.

MyNorthwest Politics

Photo: President Joe Biden participates in a briefing in the Oval Office of the White House, Dec. 2...

Luke Duecy

What Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race means for Washington

The news is out that President Joe Biden has stepped out of the race but we asked experts, how will Biden's withdrawal impact Washington?

7 hours ago

Image: Vice President Kamala Harris speaks from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Mo...

Associated Press

Harris wins Pelosi endorsement, delegates and claims fundraising record with $81M haul

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, who initially had been one of the notable holdouts, endorsed Kamala Harris Monday.

12 hours ago

Photo: President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the 75th anniversary of NATO at the Andrew W. Mellon...

MyNorthwest and KIRO Newsradio staff

‘Bring it on:’ Washington officials react to Biden dropping out of the race

Washington officials have reacted to President Joe Biden dropping out of the 2024 presidential election.

1 day ago

Image: Vice President Kamala Harris, left, and President Joe Biden attend a trilateral meeting in t...

Associated Press

Democrats promise ‘orderly process’ to replace Biden, where Harris is favored but questions remain

As President Joe Biden ends his reelection bid and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris, Democrats must navigate an unprecedented shift.

1 day ago

Image: President Joe Biden speaks at the 115th NAACP National Convention at the Mandalay Bay Conven...

Associated Press

Biden drops out of 2024 race after disastrous debate inflamed age concerns. VP Harris gets his nod

Biden dropped out of the 2024 race for the White House on Sunday, ending his bid for reelection following a disastrous debate with Trump.

2 days ago

Seattle Traffic...

Bill Kaczaraba

City of Seattle oversight leads to tens of thousands getting $10 checks

A curious turn of events unfolded in Seattle as over 44,000 car owners and businesses began receiving unexpected $10 checks.

3 days ago

U.S. Supreme Court rules against Redmond couple challenging foreign income tax