Here is How One Couple’s Lawsuit Over an IRS Bill Might Change US Tax Laws For Everyone

By: Mikaila Storrs | Published: Jan 15, 2024

A $15,000 IRS bill could change the American tax code forever and cost the United States Government up to $340 billion.

This all started when the U.S. government told Charles and Kathleen Moore they owed $14,729 in taxes for a company they made in India.

Couple Argues They Never Made a Profit from Investment

The Supreme Court heard the couples’ lawsuit on December 5, arguing that they never received a profit from their investment.

Advertisement
Calculator On Top Of American Money With Pen and Paper

Source Karolina Grabowska/Pexels

This makes logical sense because if you don’t make money, then you don’t pay tax.

Advertisement

Does Reinvested Money Still Get Taxed?

The Moores claim they never received a profit from their investment; instead, the money was reinvested into their company, KisanKraft.

Advertisement
Tax Forms With Tax Time Sticky Note and Clock

Source: Nataliya Vaitkevich/ pexels

Because they never received the income, the Moores believe they should not be taxed on the money.

Does Their Money Get Taxed or Not?

Their case centers around the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was made in 2017, under the mandatory repatriation tax.

Advertisement
Person Calculating Taxes on Desk With Laptop

Source Nataliya Vaitkevich/ Pexels

The Moores have a 13% stake in KisanKraft after investing $40,000 in 2005. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act placed a levy on U.S. taxpayers who own more than 10% of a foreign company, and the Moores’ company is in India.

Is Charging Tax on Unrealized Income Unconstitutional?

The Moores are asking for a refund on the tax they paid, arguing that it is unconstitutional and a direct violation of the apportionment requirements.

Advertisement
Preamble To The United States Constitution

Source: Wikipedia

Lawyer Andrew Grossman told the Supreme Court a “gain is not income unless it has been realized by the taxpayer.”

What Are Unrealized Gains and Why Do They Matter in This Case?

According to Vanguard, Gains that are “on paper” are unrealized.

Moore V United States Wealth Tax

Source @RbReich/X

This means if you bought a share for $10 and it’s now worth $12, you have an unrealized gain of $2. You won’t pay any taxes until you sell the share.

Advertisement

Charles Moore Speaks Out on the Lawsuit

The argument the Moores are presenting to the federal court is that they were taxed on their personal property rather than any income from the corporation.

Charles and Kathleen Moore v. United States

Source: Competitive Enterprise Institution

“If you haven’t received any income, how can you be required to pay income taxes?” Charles Moore asks in a video posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is representing the couple. “It seemed, to both of us, unconstitutional.”

Advertisement

The Government Is Unlikely to Rule in Favor of the Moores

The government’s lawyer said that ruling in favor of the Moores could cause a “sea change in the operation of the tax code” and cost “several trillion dollars” in lost revenue.

People rallying outside Supreme Court

Source: Lara Jameson/Pexels

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of their argument, it could completely reshape the United States Tax Code.

Advertisement

The Government Could Have to Pay Up to $5 Trillion

A lawyer at Holland & Knight, Josh Odintz is in support of the government. He states that ruling in favor of giving the Moores a refund could “invalidate large parts of the Internal Revenue Code.”

Symbol Of Eagle With Shield On United States Dollar

Source: Karolina Grabowska/ Pexels

This would cost the government more than 5 trillion dollars.

Advertisement

If They Rule in Favor, The Rich Get Richer

A major concern is that if we require income to be realized before it can be taxed then could lead to “increased economic distortions, create policy uncertainty, and reduce federal revenue.”

Charles and Kathleen Moore v. United States

Source: Urban Institute/Youtube

If they rule in favor of the refund, it will lead to wealth disparity as this will mean the very wealthy can hold on to assets strategically that allow them to avoid paying taxes altogether.

Advertisement

How Can the Billionaires' Income Tax Bill Keep Everyone Accountable?

To keep those who may find loopholes in keeping large amounts of wealth and not paying their fair share in taxes, the Billionaires Income Tax was introduced.

Tax withholding and other tax papers with a black coffee mug

Source: Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash

The bill would tax individuals with more than $1 billion in assets or who make $100 million in income for three years at a 20% rate, on realized and unrealized income.

Advertisement

Supreme Court Is Leaning Toward a Narrow Ruling

Ron Wyden is rooting for the Billionaires Income Tax Act and says that if the Moores win their case, this would prevent the bill from passing.

United States Supreme Court Building Exterior

Source: Wikipedia

However, it would seem that the Supreme Court is leaning towards a narrow ruling to avoid impacts on the tax code.

Advertisement

How Often Does the US Tax Code Change?

US Tax Codes change every year, some years more than others. The next few years may see more changes than we are used to.

Piggy Bank US tax code changes

There will be a few big changes in 2024 including an annual inflation adjustment and the income thresholds that determine tax brackets. The latter could have implications for many tax payers.

Advertisement

What Exactly Were the Moores Investing In?

KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Limited was designed to get Indias poorest regions better tools and equipment for farming.

Success was almost immediate, the revenue of the company has increased annually since the initial investment by the Moores.

Advertisement

How Many Tax Laws Could Change?

Mitchell M Gans was quoted in Newsweek as suggesting that many more tax laws could change as a result of this one ruling.

Supreme court and tax laws

Apparently many current laws could become vulnerable to change depending entirely on how SCOTUS rules.

Advertisement