Moore v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Moore v. United States
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: December 5, 2023
Decided: June 20, 2024
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
7-2
Majority
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Ketanji Brown Jackson • Amy Coney Barrett (concurring in judgment) • Samuel Alito
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch

Moore v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 20, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Court on December 5, 2023.

In a 7-2 opinion, the court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's judgment, holding, "The [Mandatory Repatriation Tax] MRT—which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income—does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority."[1] Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned the court's majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the 16th Amendment and Congress' authority to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states."[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's judgment.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:


    Background

    In 2005, Charles and Kathleen Moore invested $40,000 for 11% of the common shares in an Indian corporation called KisanKraft, which provides small farmers in India with tools.[3] KisanKraft is a controlled foreign corporation ("CFC"): a foreign corporation that is majority-owned by U.S. persons. The corporation reinvested its profits back into the business. Therefore, shareholders did not receive any distributions or dividends from the company.[4][5]

    According to a tax code provision called Subpart F, before 2017, U.S. shareholders of CFCs were only taxed on foreign earnings when those earnings returned to the United States. In 2017, Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which introduced a one-time Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) that retroactively taxed CFC earnings after 1986, regardless of whether or not profits were repatriated to the United States.[3] Based on the Moores’ share of KisanKraft’s retained earnings, the TCJA gave them a tax liability of about $15,000. They challenged the constitutionality of this tax in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that although the MRT taxed income was retroactive, it did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.[3][4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without

    apportionment among the states. [6]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 7-2 opinion, the court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's judgment, holding, "The MRT—which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income—does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority."[1] Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned the court's majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “ For tax purposes, Congress has long treated some corporations and partnerships as pass-throughs: Congress does not tax the entity on its income, but instead attributes the undistributed income of the entity to the shareholders or partners and then taxes the shareholders or partners on that income. This Court has long upheld those taxes.


    Since 1962, Congress has likewise treated American- controlled foreign corporations as pass-throughs. That 1962 law (known as subpart F) attributes certain income, mostly passive income, of American-controlled foreign corporations to their American shareholders and then taxes those shareholders on that income.

    In 2017, Congress enacted a new law that attributes more income, including active business income, of American- controlled foreign corporations to their American shareholders and then taxes those shareholders on that 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. This Court’s longstanding precedents establish that the answer is yes.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Concurring opinions

    Justice Jackson

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “ Against that stark backdrop, the Court wisely takes a re-strained approach today. Petitioners allege that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) exceeded Congress’s power by taxing shareholders on the undistributed income of a corporation; such a tax, petitioners argue, is really a direct tax requiring apportionment. The majority opinion rightly rejects that challenge, thoroughly explaining why the MRT falls within Congress’s long-recognized, oft-exercised power to tax shareholders on the undistributed income of a business entity. See ante, at 22. I write separately to emphasize that, before taking up petitioners’ invitation to strike down a lawfully enacted tax, the Court would need to be persuaded of several additional arguments that we wisely do not reach. I highlight two.


    First, we would need to agree with petitioners that Congress can tax income only if it is actually received or “realized.” ... Second, even if we were to hold that a uniform tax violated the Sixteenth Amendment, we would still need to con- firm that the tax was a direct tax before requiring apportionment.

    ... I have no doubt that future Congresses will pass, and future Presidents will sign, taxes that outrage one group or another—taxes that strike some as demanding too much,others as asking too little. There may even be impositions that, as a matter of policy, all can agree are wrongheaded. However, Pollock teaches us that this Court’s role in such disputes should be limited. “[T]he remedy for such abuses is to be found at the ballot-box, and in a wholesome public opinion which the representatives of the people will not long, if at all, disregard, and not in the disregard by the judiciary of powers that have been committed to another branch of the government.”

    With that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion in full.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Justice Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Samuel Alito.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ Congress’s power to attribute the income of closely held corporations to their shareholders is a difficult question—and unfortunately, the parties barely addressed it. Without focused briefing on the attribution question, I would not resolve it. Subpart F and the MRT may or may not be constitutional, nonarbitrary attributions of closely held foreign corporations’ income to their shareholders. In this litigation, however, the Moores have conceded that subpart F is constitutional. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9. And I agree with the Court that subpart F is not meaningfully different from the MRT in how it attributes corporate income to shareholders. Ante, at 20–21. Taxpayers generally bear the burden toshow they are entitled to a refund. United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 440 (1976); see also Haaland v. Brackeen, 599U. S. 255, 277–278 (2023) (burden to show unconstitutionality). Given the Moores’ concession, they have not met that burden here. For that reason, I concur in the Court’s judgment affirming the judgment below.[6] ”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ Today, the Court upholds the MRT only by ignoring the question presented. It does “not address the Government’s argument that a gain need not be realized to constitute income under the Constitution.” Ante, at 12–13, n. 3. Instead, the Court answers the question “whether Congress may attribute an entity’s realized and undistributed income to the entity’s shareholders or partners, and then tax the shareholders or partners on their portions of that income.” Ante, at 8. After changing the subject, the majority upholds the MRT by relying on unrelated precedent to derive a “clear rule” that “Congress can attribute the undistributed income of an entity to the entity’s shareholders or partners.” Ante, at 10–11.


    I respectfully dissent. The Ninth Circuit erred by concluding that realization is not a constitutional requirement for income taxes. And, the majority’s “attribution” doctrine is an unsupported invention.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Moore v. United States, decided June 20, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "22-800 MOORE V. UNITED STATES QUESTION PRESENTED:," CERT. GRANTED June 26, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Casetext, "Moore v. United States," accessed December 18, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Oyez, "Moore v. United States," accessed December 18, 2023
    5. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Charles G. Moore and Kathleen F. Moore v. United States of America, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," accessed December 18, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 5, 2023
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 5, 2023
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Moore_v._United_States&oldid=9589563"