Supreme Court upholds Biden-backed tax on foreign corporate investments

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court upholds Biden-backed tax on foreign corporate investments
By
Kaelan Deese
June 20, 2024 10:09 am
.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of taxation on foreign income in a case backed by business and anti-regulatory interests who said the provision was similar to a “wealth tax.”

The 7-2 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh upheld the mandatory repatriation tax, siding with the Biden administration to uphold the provision of the 2017 corporate tax reform law. The law imposes a one-time levy on undistributed profits from U.S. shares of foreign corporations majority-owned by U.S. residents, and it is expected to generate $340 billion.

The decision stems from a case known as Moore v. United States brought by Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state couple who argued that the $15,000 increase in their tax bill, due to the tax, was unconstitutional because it taxed unrealized income.

“The question is whether that 2017 tax (known as the Mandatory Repatriation Tax or MRT) is constitutional under Article I, §§8 and 9 and the Sixteenth Amendment,” Kavanaugh wrote. “This Court’s longstanding precedents establish that the answer is yes.”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3044926/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-biden-wealth-tax/

[PeteS in CA]

LIEden wasn't President in 2017.

[Kamaji]

Thomas and Gorsuch are simply wrong on this one.

The income was clearly realized, and the taxpayers in question had sufficient control over the income that it could fairly be attributed to them under any concept of due process and minimum "fair play".

This is absolutely not the same thing as imputing income on the basis of a mark-to-market regime, or some other proxy for treating unrealized gains as income - which is what the democrats really want to accomplish with their wealth tax proposals.

Attributing the income of a controlled corporation to the shareholders is no more objectionable under the Constitution than is attributing the income of a partnership to the partners.

[PeteS in CA]

VICTORY: Supreme Court Rules Government Officials Cannot Arrest their Political Opponents Without Consequences

https://ij.org/press-release/gonzalez-v-trevino-decision/

“This is a great day for the First Amendment and Sylvia Gonzalez, who has courageously fought against retaliatory actions by government officials,” said Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice (IJ).  “The Supreme Court’s revision of its First Amendment retaliation doctrine ensures that Americans can seek justice when they have evidence of a retaliatory arrest. Retaliatory arrests undermine the very foundation of our democracy, and this ruling helps safeguard the rights of all Americans to speak out without fear of retribution. We are proud to have been part of this crucial victory for free speech.”

Sylvia’s case began in 2019 after she was elected as the first Hispanic councilwoman in Castle Hills, Texas. Following her election, she led a citizens’ petition to remove the city manager for mistreating employees and neglecting basic city services. This act of political speech resulted in coordinated retaliation by city officials.

Two months later, city officials—including the mayor and police chief—falsely accused Gonzalez of tampering with a government record, leading to her arrest. After a humiliating day in jail and her mugshot was splashed across local media, the district attorney dropped the charges. Despite this, the ongoing intimidation forced Sylvia to resign from the city council.

In September 2020, Sylvia partnered with the Institute for Justice to file a federal lawsuit to vindicate her First Amendment rights. The city’s attempts to dismiss the case failed in the district court, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled that Sylvia failed to prove the arrest was unequivocally retaliatory, despite clear evidence of selective prosecution. And now the Supreme Court has ruled that Sylvia’s case can move forward.

This ruling allows the case to proceed to trial.