, the court upheld a one-time tax on offshore earnings that helped fund the massive tax cut is permitted under Congress’s limited powers of taxation.An unusual political coalition defended the offshore-earnings tax, from the Biden administration to conservatives including former House speaker Paul D. Ryan.
The Moores told the court they never earned any money from their investment, and they sued the federal government seeking a refund. The district court dismissed their case,the tax was within Congress’s power and permitted under the 16th Amendment regardless of whether the Moores took in, or “realized,” any income.
The specific tax that the Moores object to paying, known as Section 965, was forecast to raise more than $300 billion over 10 years. Some major corporations have already paid billions under this specific tax; a ruling that struck itAdvertisement Some tax experts said the Moores were more involved in the company than they disclosed in court filings and
based on an inaccurate, incomplete record. One of the couple’s lawyers defended the record as accurate and candid., several justices said the tax on certain offshore earnings was substantially similar to other major forms of taxation, including on income earned by business partnerships, limited liability corporations and other offshore income.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »
Source: VanityFair - 🏆 391. / 55 Read more »
Source: 13WHAM - 🏆 256. / 63 Read more »
Source: NBCNewsHealth - 🏆 707. / 51 Read more »
Source: komonews - 🏆 272. / 63 Read more »
Source: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »