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.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 months 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?

    You mean property tax? Because almost every state already ups your taxes if your value goes up. In TX they reassess every year. In CA they had to pass a law to STOP doing it (now it only goes up by a flat rate every year if I remember correctly), but that has led to new loopholes to avoid tax.

    But I do see your point. For normal people, their main or only asset is their house. They need to live there and aren’t necessarily getting 10% pay raises when their value goes up 20%. If my house were taxed at its current value, I don’t think I could afford to live there since I don’t own it outright.

    The big issue is that banks give out very low interest loans based on assets that have unrealized gains. Those loans are used as income by wealthy people but aren’t taxed by the government. They are “taxed” by the banks getting some money in interest, but the government sees none of that and it’s at a much lower rate than capital gains.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That is one way to do it. That would have to include real estate, though, unless you put in a homestead exemption to protect normal people.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Property tax is a different matter entirely, that is an assessment from the local government that is based on the property value, to pay for local services. It has nothing to do with the property as an investment. Local governments don’t have to find themselves through property taxes, but many do.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        God we need to simplify the fuck out of taxes, because my first thought was “those are pretty much the same thing” and then my second thought was “no wait, those have a fundamental difference.”