Supreme Court tax case could have outsized ramifications on income taxation

The Supreme Court accepts a tax case

The constitutionality of a $14,729 tax obligation has made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And if you suspect that sum is too modest for the Court to truly care about, then you’re onto why the worlds of tax and wealth management, not to mention the White House, are closely watching this case.

Whether Charles and Kathy Moore are refunded their mandatory repatriation tax payment from 2018 is a footnote relative to the question the Court might answer in Moore v. United States if it chooses to issue a broad ruling in spring 2024.

Can Congress tax wealth by imposing an income tax on paper gains on a taxpayer’s home, land, business or other long-term investments?

Challenging the constitutionality of a tax law

The Moores didn’t necessarily set out to provoke a ruling that could result in seismic changes to the U.S. tax landscape. They seek a refund on the $14,729 they were forced to pay as a result of their stake in a farming equipment corporation located in India.

The specified foreign corporation, KisanKraft, reinvests its profits; but an American tax law enacted in 2017 required a one-time repatriation on profits held overseas. Even though the Moores never received a corporate dividend, they were on the hook for the tax.

The Moores challenged the tax primarily on the grounds that it is not an income tax under the 16th Amendment because it is levied on a deemed distribution of earnings—rather than a realization event—from the specified foreign corporation.

Potential tax ramifications of Moore v. United States

A relatively narrow ruling still could revisit 100 years of settled law governing taxation of unrealized corporate income. A broad ruling, however unexpected, could upend some foundational tax laws, transform how personal wealth is taxed, and affect billions, if not trillions, in government revenue.

Upping the stakes further is President Joe Biden’s so-called Billionaire Minimum Income Tax. The dormant proposal seeks to require the wealthiest of ultrawealthy Americans to pay at least a 20% tax on their full income, including unrealized appreciation. The administration claims such a tax would reduce the federal deficit by $360 billion over the next decade.

Is such a tax even constitutional, though? The Court may see the Moore case as its opportunity to opine. After all, the issue of taxing unrealized capital gains is serious for individuals and for the capital markets.

Timeline for Moore v. United States

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are scheduled for Dec. 5, 2023. A ruling is expected around June 2024. 

Additional background and insights

Supreme Court docket files for Moore v. United States
The case page on the Supreme Court’s website contains official documents, including amicus briefs, related to the case.

US wealth tax could gain footing with Supreme Court Moore ruling
A Bloomberg Tax op-ed by Don Susswein and Ramon Camacho, RSM principals, articulates their perspective about how a ruling in this case might affect the constitutionality of a wealth tax.

SCOTUSblog: Moore v. United States
This widely known independent site covering the Supreme Court includes a timeline of proceedings and orders and provides links to the Court’s analysis of the case.

Possible new issue in unrealized gains case
This Tax Notes op-ed by Don Susswein and RSM Senior Manager Kyle Brown explains the constitutional issues at stake in the case. (subscription required)

Let’s Talk!

Call us at (325) 677-6251 or fill out the form below and we’ll contact you to discuss your specific situation.

  • Topic Name:
  • Should be Empty:

This article was written by RSM US LLP and originally appeared on 2023-11-10.
2022 RSM US LLP. All rights reserved.

The information contained herein is general in nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. RSM US LLP guarantees neither the accuracy nor completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for results obtained by others as a result of reliance upon such information. RSM US LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect information contained herein. This publication does not, and is not intended to, provide legal, tax or accounting advice, and readers should consult their tax advisors concerning the application of tax laws to their particular situations. This analysis is not tax advice and is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer.

RSM US Alliance provides its members with access to resources of RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance member firms are separate and independent businesses and legal entities that are responsible for their own acts and omissions, and each is separate and independent from RSM US LLP. RSM US LLP is the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax, and consulting firms. Members of RSM US Alliance have access to RSM International resources through RSM US LLP but are not member firms of RSM International. Visit us for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. The RSM logo is used under license by RSM US LLP. RSM US Alliance products and services are proprietary to RSM US LLP.