Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
This lawsuit could disrupt the U.S. tax system. Key facts are in dispute.
This lawsuit could disrupt the U.S. tax system. Key facts are in dispute.
Supreme Court to hear challenge to new tax on offshore earnings that was part of Donald Trump’s 2017 tax overhaul
By Ann E. Marimow and Julie Zauzmer Weil
November 27, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EST
The fate of an obscure provision of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax package, which will be reviewed by the Supreme Court next week, has many experts panicked over the potential to destabilize the nation’s tax system. In addition, some say the outcome could preemptively block Congress from creating a wealth tax. ... But the case has also exposed questions about the accuracy of the personal story a Washington State couple presented to the court in making their constitutional challenge to the tax, a one-time levy on offshore earnings.
Charles and Kathleen Moore appear to have closer ties to the company central to the case than they disclosed in court filings. Among other things, Charles Moore served on its board for five years and made a significant cash contribution to the company, records show. ... Legal advocacy groups often rely on individuals to humanize their efforts in court, and it is not the first time that those on the other side have pointed to inconsistencies between what the justices are told in filings and the realities outside the courtroom.
[ Inside the tactics that won Christian vendors the right to reject gay weddings ]
This time, however, questions about the legal basis for the couple’s challenge to the tax have been raised before the justices are scheduled to hear oral argument on Dec. 5. Advocates who oppose their challenge have asked the Supreme Court to ditch the case and urged the couple’s attorneys, who come from an anti-regulatory advocacy group, to correct what they say are omissions and misstatements in the record.
Mindy Herzfeld, a tax policy expert from the University of Florida who has written extensively about the case known as Moore v. United States, said the court should not decide a constitutional question based on “an inaccurate set of facts.” To do so, she wrote in a recent column in Tax Notes, “risks undermining the Court’s legitimacy and creating the impression that its docket and its decisions are too easily manipulated by politically motivated interest groups.” ... Dan Greenberg, an attorney for the Moores and general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in a statement: “I’m confident that our filings are candid and accurate.”
{snip}
The case is Moore v. United States.
Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.
Share
https://wapo.st/47Q3Nq1
By Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Twitter https://twitter.com/amarimow
By Julie Weil
Julie Z. Weil reports on taxes. She has worked at The Post since 2013, including four years covering religion in America and two covering local government in D.C. Twitter https://twitter.com/juliezweil
Supreme Court to hear challenge to new tax on offshore earnings that was part of Donald Trump’s 2017 tax overhaul
By Ann E. Marimow and Julie Zauzmer Weil
November 27, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EST
The fate of an obscure provision of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax package, which will be reviewed by the Supreme Court next week, has many experts panicked over the potential to destabilize the nation’s tax system. In addition, some say the outcome could preemptively block Congress from creating a wealth tax. ... But the case has also exposed questions about the accuracy of the personal story a Washington State couple presented to the court in making their constitutional challenge to the tax, a one-time levy on offshore earnings.
Charles and Kathleen Moore appear to have closer ties to the company central to the case than they disclosed in court filings. Among other things, Charles Moore served on its board for five years and made a significant cash contribution to the company, records show. ... Legal advocacy groups often rely on individuals to humanize their efforts in court, and it is not the first time that those on the other side have pointed to inconsistencies between what the justices are told in filings and the realities outside the courtroom.
[ Inside the tactics that won Christian vendors the right to reject gay weddings ]
This time, however, questions about the legal basis for the couple’s challenge to the tax have been raised before the justices are scheduled to hear oral argument on Dec. 5. Advocates who oppose their challenge have asked the Supreme Court to ditch the case and urged the couple’s attorneys, who come from an anti-regulatory advocacy group, to correct what they say are omissions and misstatements in the record.
Mindy Herzfeld, a tax policy expert from the University of Florida who has written extensively about the case known as Moore v. United States, said the court should not decide a constitutional question based on “an inaccurate set of facts.” To do so, she wrote in a recent column in Tax Notes, “risks undermining the Court’s legitimacy and creating the impression that its docket and its decisions are too easily manipulated by politically motivated interest groups.” ... Dan Greenberg, an attorney for the Moores and general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in a statement: “I’m confident that our filings are candid and accurate.”
{snip}
The case is Moore v. United States.
Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.
Share
https://wapo.st/47Q3Nq1
By Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Twitter https://twitter.com/amarimow
By Julie Weil
Julie Z. Weil reports on taxes. She has worked at The Post since 2013, including four years covering religion in America and two covering local government in D.C. Twitter https://twitter.com/juliezweil