The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments Tuesday in a closely watched case that some warn could have sweeping implications for the U.S. tax system and derail proposals from some Democrats to create a wealth tax.

The dispute before the justices, known as Moore v. United States, dates back to 2006. That year, Charles and Kathleen Moore made an investment to help start the India-based company, KisanKraft Machine Tools, which provides farmers in India with tools and equipment. The couple invested $40,000 in exchange for 13% of the company’s shares.

KisanKraft’s revenues have grown each year since it was founded, and the company has reinvested its earnings to expand the business instead of distributing dividends to shareholders.

The Moores did not receive any distributions, dividends or other payments from KisanKraft, according to filings with the Supreme Court. But in 2018, the couple learned they had to pay taxes on their share of KisanKraft’s reinvested lifetime earnings under the “mandatory repatriation tax,” which was enacted through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump the year before. The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years.

  • Overzeetop
    link
    fedilink
    321 year ago

    “imagine the shitshow if you had to pay extra every year if you owned a house outright but the property values kept going up”

    Like property taxes, then. ;-)

    Realistically, I understand the issue. If I had to pay taxes on the increase in price on my house (say from a $300k valuation three years ago to a $500k valuation after the market bubble), I’d be fucked to find 15% of that overnight. Of course, if they allowed that to be offset by the primary residence exemption, it would be a zero cost. Without that, it would still be a non-issue for 95% or more of US taxpayers because most people simply don’t own an illiquid asset that increases in capital value (much less an international one), and if you exclude secondary real estate that non-issue number probably increases to more then 99.9%.

    • @joel_feila
      link
      31 year ago

      Man i wish more people i knew could understand your post.

    • Chetzemoka
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Where the fuck is the property tax rate 15%?? Highest in the US is still less than 3%.

      https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/property-taxes-by-state

      I faced this exact scenario. I bought my house in Nov 2019 - right before the giant pandemic price increase. It’s gained $200,000 in value and my property taxes went up by $200/month. Which at my income level is not an absurd burden.

      I don’t think we should have owner occupied exemptions on property tax, and I’m happy to pay my share of that tax to keep my city functioning. I DO think we should have burdensome sales/transfer taxes on non-occupying owners.

      • Overzeetop
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        The property tax was separate, and it happens regardless. The 15% is the long term capital gain rate - if the value of an asset increases (say 300k->500k) I have a 200k gain. I don’t pay tax on that 200k until I sell, but if there were an in-process gain tax, I would. So instead of owing taxes on my profit/gain when I sell, I would pay the gain each year (and carry over a loss if the value of the house decreased). Coming up with 30k (200kx15%) would be a tough think to do simply because my neighborhood got popular in the Real Estate market.

        • Chetzemoka
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about current taxes, not a hypothetical future wealth tax. Of course a wealth tax should exempt one primary owner occupied property until sold.

    • @kbotc
      link
      English
      -21 year ago

      My other big question: What about times when the asset doesn’t pay off? Does the US government cut me a check or did I just get taxed on money that never existed in the first place?

      • @Pateecakes
        link
        61 year ago

        When the asset doesn’t pay off you get to write that off on your taxes.

        • @kbotc
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          So when something like 2008 rolls around, the US Government just gets 1/8th its income at a time it really needs to pay out?

          • @Pateecakes
            link
            21 year ago

            That puts it pretty simply, but yes. And at least in 2008 it was mostly loans instead of hand outs so it got paid back.

          • Overzeetop
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            YES! And this is the problem with profit based taxes. You should be taxes on what you have (property taxes) and what you receive (gross receipt taxes). The ebb and flow of commerce does vary, but the overall work and wealth is more stable. It also makes taxes harder to dodge as there are no deductions for expenses or other items. My local business tax is this way - I pay a couple percent in fixed assets tax, plus a (I think it’s less than a) percent on my gross receipts - take what your paid, multiply it by 0.012, send that amount in. Simple, effective, and relatively consistent. It also, in a very simple way, reflects that government services are not a bonus the town gets when you make a profit but a cost of doing business. My power company charges me whether I make a profit or not, as does my web service, my copier maintenance plan, etc.

      • @dogslayeggs
        link
        41 year ago

        You can write off losses on your taxes. If you have enough losses you might get a tax refund.

        • @kbotc
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          So, I paid the government 15% because they thought my underlying asset was worth more than it was actually worth when I actually tried to get the money, then I can only claim and offset $3k per year for the rest of time unless I have a bunch of new capital gains?

          That is fundamentally fucked.