Supreme Court upholds Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut law on foreign investments in major win for IRS

The SCOTUS upheld a Trump-era tax, a win for the government which had warned the failed challenge could have cost it trillions in tax revenue
PUBLISHED JUN 21, 2024
The US Supreme Court upheld a tax on foreign investments that was included in the 2017 tax cut law signed by former President Donald Trump (Getty Images)
The US Supreme Court upheld a tax on foreign investments that was included in the 2017 tax cut law signed by former President Donald Trump (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC: The Supreme Court has upheld a tax on foreign investments that was included in the 2017 tax cut law signed by former President Donald Trump. This decision was made on Thursday, June 20, rejecting a challenge supported by business groups.

Per the New York Post, the SCOTUS in a 7-2 ruling, stated that Congress had the authority to impose a one-time tax on investors' profits that have not been distributed to them. Critics had suggested that this tax could potentially pave the way for a future wealth tax.

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump arrives for a rally at Festival Park on June 18, 2024 in Racine, Wisconsin. This is Trump's third visit to Wisconsin, a key swing state in 2024. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
On June 20, the Supreme Court upheld a tax on foreign investments that was included in the 2017 tax cut law (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, contended that the argument against the tax, presented by a couple from Washington state, “taken to its logical conclusion, could render vast swaths of the Internal Revenue Code unconstitutional.”

“And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the US Government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue.”

Who are the Washington state couple who brought the case to court?

The lawsuit was initiated by Charles and Kathleen Moore, who contested a tax assessment of approximately $15,000 linked to Charles Moore's investment in an Indian company.

In a legal declaration, Moore asserted that he did not receive any funds from the company, KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Ltd.

However, public records reveal that Charles Moore's involvement with the company, including a five-year tenure as a director, is more extensive than indicated in the court documents.

(Getty Images)
During his time in office, Donald Trump's most notable achievement was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Getty Images)

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, with Thomas arguing that the provision breached the 16th Amendment, which established income tax.

“Charles and Kathleen Moore paid $14,729 in taxes on an investment that never yielded them a penny,” Justice Thomas wrote. “… Sixteenth Amendment ‘incomes’ include only income realized by the taxpayer. The text and history of the Amendment make clear that it requires a distinction between ‘income’ and the ‘source’ from which that income is ‘derived.’ And, the only way to draw such a distinction is with a realization requirement.”

The aforementioned tax was levied on American-owned businesses that operate abroad. Over ten years, it was expected to generate around $340 billion.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 30: United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses fo
United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's assertion, writing that the provision violated the 16th Amendment establishing an income tax (Getty Images)

Justice Kavanaugh issued a warning, stating that it would be incorrect to view his ruling as authorizing "any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity.”

The Moores' lawsuit was initiated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which claimed that the clause amounted to an "unapportioned direct tax on their shares," which are only subject to taxation at the time of sale under current legislation.

“The precise and narrow question that the Court addresses today is whether Congress may attribute an entity’s realized and undistributed income to the entity’s shareholders or partners, and then tax the shareholders or partners on their portions of that income,” Kavanaugh wrote.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 08: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh attends his ceremo
Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that while there may be 'wrongheaded' policy on taxation, the US Supreme Court’s 'role in such disputes should be limited' (Getty Images)

Although there may be "wrongheaded" tax policies, the justice continued, "this court's role in such disputes should be limited."

Justice Thomas disagreed in his rebuttal, claiming, “Even as the majority admits to reasoning from fiscal consequences, it apparently believes that a generous application of dicta will guard against unconstitutional taxes in the future.”

Various versions of a proposed "wealth tax" have been discussed by Democrats in Congress, but none of them have materialized as of yet.

Justice Kavanaugh did, however, appear to leave open the possibility of overturning a wealth tax in the future should it be brought before the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 04:  Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senat
Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to have left open the future possibility of overturning a wealth tax should it be brought before the United States Supreme Court (Getty Images)

“The Moores argue that realization is a constitutional requirement; the Government argues that it is not. To decide this case, we need not resolve that disagreement over realization,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Those are potential issues for another day.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who sided with the majority, declined requests from Senate Democrats to recuse himself from the case due to his association with David Rivkin, legal counsel for the Moores.

Alito did not align with Kavanaugh's opinion; instead, he endorsed a separate concurrence authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who contended that the complexities of the case were greater than Kavanaugh had suggested.

MORE STORIES

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked the GOP's eighth attempt to reopen the government
8 hours ago
California already allows trans athletes to compete in school sports based on their gender identity
11 hours ago
Pete Hegseth says 'Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right' as top outlets reject new media restrictions and risk losing credentials
1 day ago
Donald Trump said a very wealthy donor offered to personally cover troop pay if government shutdown funds fall short
1 day ago
The six people are from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Paraguay, and South Africa
1 day ago
President Donald Trump blamed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for the shutdown and confirmed ending several Democrat-backed federal programs
3 days ago
Donald Trump criticized Chuck Schumer over the shutdown and said he directed Pete Hegseth to use funds to ensure troops are paid on October 15
4 days ago
Several progressives who have long called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas have not yet commented on the agreement’s terms or timeline
6 days ago
Trump posted a scathing montage, accusing Democrats of shutting down the government to please their 'radical left' base
7 days ago
John Kennedy is calling out Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over the tough spot he’s in amid government shutdown
7 days ago