Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Tax Act: Opens Door to Wealth Tax
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 88 days ago
The Supreme Court has ruled that a part of President Trump's 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' that levied a tax on capital appreciation is constitutional. The court ruled 7-2 that the mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, is constitutional under the taxation regimes defined in Article I and the 16th Amendment.
The case involved Charles and Kathleen Moore, who invested $40,000 in an Indian business named KisanKraft in 2005. The investment was successful, and the company made a profit every year. However, the Moores had not received a single cent in income from their investment.
In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, which imposed a one-time "repatriation" tax on profits held overseas. The profits were based on the increased investment value, even though the asset was not sold. As a result, the Moores were hit with a $14,729 tax bill. They paid the bill and sued the federal government, claiming a violation of the 16th Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory repatriation tax is constitutional under the taxation regimes defined in Article I and the 16th Amendment. The court noted that, at least with respect to undistributed corporate income, double taxation is off the table.
This ruling is significant because it has implications for a potential wealth tax. During her 2020 presidential campaign, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposed a 2 percent tax on all the accumulated wealth held by Americans worth more than $50 million. The wealth tax's strategy is to prevent the accumulation of intergenerational wealth and penalize those who work hard, save, and invest in favor of those who consume.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case has opened the door to a wealth tax. The Moores were forced to take the money and pay a tax on the money they had not received. Just like the Supreme Court declared that the tax the Moores paid didn't violate the Article 1 requirement that direct taxes be apportioned, the Roberts court also said that the ObamaCare mandate didn't fall under the apportionment requirement.
This ruling has significant implications for the future of tax policy in the United States. It is a victory for those who believe in the importance of protecting wealth from confiscation. However, it is also a warning to those who value the principle of limited government and the protection of individual rights.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case is a reminder that the government has the power to tax its citizens, even when they have not received any income. This ruling has opened the door to a wealth tax, which could have far-reaching consequences for the American economy.
It is important for Americans to be aware of this ruling and its implications. The government has the power to tax its citizens, and it is up to the American people to hold their elected officials accountable for how they use that power.
In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mandatory repatriation tax is constitutional. However, it is important to remember that the government's power to tax is not unlimited. The Constitution sets limits on the government's power to tax, and it is up to the American people to ensure that those limits are respected.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in this case is a significant victory for those who believe in the importance of protecting wealth from confiscation. However, it is also a warning to those who value the principle of limited government and the protection of individual rights. The government has the power to tax its citizens, and it is up to the American people to hold their elected officials accountable for how they use that power.
Sources:
redstate.com
redstate.com
jonathanturley.org
The case involved Charles and Kathleen Moore, who invested $40,000 in an Indian business named KisanKraft in 2005. The investment was successful, and the company made a profit every year. However, the Moores had not received a single cent in income from their investment.
In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, which imposed a one-time "repatriation" tax on profits held overseas. The profits were based on the increased investment value, even though the asset was not sold. As a result, the Moores were hit with a $14,729 tax bill. They paid the bill and sued the federal government, claiming a violation of the 16th Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory repatriation tax is constitutional under the taxation regimes defined in Article I and the 16th Amendment. The court noted that, at least with respect to undistributed corporate income, double taxation is off the table.
This ruling is significant because it has implications for a potential wealth tax. During her 2020 presidential campaign, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposed a 2 percent tax on all the accumulated wealth held by Americans worth more than $50 million. The wealth tax's strategy is to prevent the accumulation of intergenerational wealth and penalize those who work hard, save, and invest in favor of those who consume.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case has opened the door to a wealth tax. The Moores were forced to take the money and pay a tax on the money they had not received. Just like the Supreme Court declared that the tax the Moores paid didn't violate the Article 1 requirement that direct taxes be apportioned, the Roberts court also said that the ObamaCare mandate didn't fall under the apportionment requirement.
This ruling has significant implications for the future of tax policy in the United States. It is a victory for those who believe in the importance of protecting wealth from confiscation. However, it is also a warning to those who value the principle of limited government and the protection of individual rights.
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case is a reminder that the government has the power to tax its citizens, even when they have not received any income. This ruling has opened the door to a wealth tax, which could have far-reaching consequences for the American economy.
It is important for Americans to be aware of this ruling and its implications. The government has the power to tax its citizens, and it is up to the American people to hold their elected officials accountable for how they use that power.
In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mandatory repatriation tax is constitutional. However, it is important to remember that the government's power to tax is not unlimited. The Constitution sets limits on the government's power to tax, and it is up to the American people to ensure that those limits are respected.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in this case is a significant victory for those who believe in the importance of protecting wealth from confiscation. However, it is also a warning to those who value the principle of limited government and the protection of individual rights. The government has the power to tax its citizens, and it is up to the American people to hold their elected officials accountable for how they use that power.
Sources:
redstate.com
redstate.com
jonathanturley.org
Latest News