Supreme Court Upholds Repatriation Tax – Introduction
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Moore v United States, upholding the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax enacted in 2017.
On 20 June 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory repatriation tax (MRT) under section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code is constitutional.
The decision might well be a narrow one. Nonetheless, it potentially also has significant implications.
Background of the MRT
The MRT was introduced as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
It imposes a one-time tax on specific US shareholders of foreign corporations based on their pro rata share of the foreign corporation’s realized but undistributed earnings accumulated since 1986.
The Moore’s challenged the MRT under the Sixteenth Amendment, arguing that it constituted an unapportioned direct tax on property.
The Court, however, upheld the MRT based on established precedents that allow Congress to attribute undistributed (and untaxed) income realized by an entity to its equity holders and tax those equity holders on their pro rata share of the income.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, concluding that the MRT is constitutional.
This conclusion was based on long-standing precedents which assert that Congress may attribute realized income of one entity (a foreign corporation) to another person (certain US shareholders) and tax them on that income.
This ruling is notable as Moore is one of the first significant constitutional tax cases addressed by the Court in many years.
Had the Court found an affirmative realization requirement, many tax regimes under the Code, such as subpart F, GILTI, PFIC, and partnership taxation, could have been upended.
However, the Court’s “precise and narrow” decision did not extend that far.
Unaddressed Issues
While the decision affirms the MRT’s constitutionality, the Court did not address two critical issues:
- Whether the constitution would allow a wealth tax on unrealized income.
- Whether a U.S. company’s realized income, already subject to U.S. corporate taxation, could be attributed to shareholders for their individual taxation.
These unanswered questions suggest potential areas for future legal challenges. Notably, the concurring and dissenting opinions revealed that at least four Justices might require a realization event for an income tax to be constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment.
Supreme Court Upholds Repatriation Tax – Conclusion
Although the decision did not declare large portions of the Code unconstitutional, it leaves the door open for future challenges to certain tax laws and policies.
The opinions expressed by the Justices indicate that areas such as wealth tax or certain income tax provisions might still be subject to scrutiny.
Taxpayers and legal experts should closely monitor developments, as Moore v United States is unlikely to be the final word on the constitutionality of various tax provisions. This decision, while maintaining the status quo, sets the stage for further debates and potential litigation in the tax law arena.
Final thoughts
If you have any comments on this article on Supreme Court Upholds Repatriation Tax, or US tax matters in general, then please get in touch.