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.

  • kbotc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 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?

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 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@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 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.

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 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.