3 ms·
This case is batshit insane, as covered by slate[1]. 1. There are material misrepresentations by the plantiff and by their counsel. The entire premise is that
by jldugger 3y ago
This case is batshit insane, as covered by slate[1].
1. There are material misrepresentations by the plantiff and by their counsel. The entire premise is that Moore shouldn't have to pay taxes without realized income, and he has no control over when his Indian holdings would realize profits -- except he owns 11 percent of the company and served on the board of directors for five years[2].
2. One of the attorneys on the case is also a WSJ editorialist who frequently interviews and coauthors articles with Justice Alito.
3. Alito has refused to recuse himself from the case (IMO on dubious grounds), and now has to really bend over backwards to ignore the perjury in #1.
4. There was no reason to grant this case cert, as it had no circuit split.
5. If overruled, it would immediately unleash a trillion dollar amount of chaos on the US tax code at a point in which Congress frankly is not equipped to govern.
6. The amount in dispute is around 15,000USD. I promise you the lawyers cost more than that. What the Tax Foundation isn't saying: plaintiffs want the supreme court to preemptively strike down the possiblity of a federal wealth tax.
[1]: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/sam-alito-moore-arguments-tax-scheme.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/sam-alito-moore-...
[2]: https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/moore-part-4-moores-mistakes-misstatements-and-possible-misfiling/2023/09/29/7hd9t https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/moore-part-4-moor...
- chmod600 3y agoIs a federal wealth tax constitutional? Income tax is specifically allowed.
- etchalon 3y agoIt would depend on how the justices interpreted the word "income".
- fxd123 3y agoWealth is explicitly not income, so I don't know how any person would interpret a wealth tax being constitutional.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- etchalon 3y agoThere are scholars on both sides of this: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/12/17/787476334/is-a-wealth-tax-constitutional https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/12/17/787476334/is-a...
- qingcharles 3y agoInteresting they granted cert with no split when there are things like abortion cases with multiple appellate splits getting denied cert IIRC. Has there ever been a SCOTUS case where after reading the briefs and taking arguments they just did a switcheroo and declined to rule?
- fxd123 3y ago> What the Tax Foundation isn't saying: plaintiffs want the supreme court to preemptively strike down the possiblity of a federal wealth tax. You are talking about this like it's a bad thing. It absolutely should be struck down, and I don't really care what case ends up striking it down
- jldugger 3y agoYou probably should because the collateral damage here is like, a trillion dollars of other tax laws on the books that would also be ruled unconstitutional.
- fxd123 3y agoThat's not a bad thing
- jldugger 3y agoNah, it pretty much is, for anyone wanting to continue living in a United States. Even tax cut libertarians should recognize that the least just taxation system is random, which is what you are essentially advocating. Moreover, unplanned income drops are a huge problem for government finance, and by extension, corporate finance. A competent government produces a budget, a tax schedule, and raises debt to meet any planned deficits. Constitutionally, the House holds the purse strings, not the Supreme Court, and overturning 200 years of precedent here is not in anybody's best interest.