While many are not focused on this case, it could have massive implications on all of our daily lives. Let Your will be done in the Supreme Court, God!

From The American Spectator. Tuesday morning the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments pursuant to a case in which Charles and Kathleen Moore argue that an obscure provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is unconstitutional. This is not an “inside baseball” case that only compulsive Court watchers will care about. If the justices rule against the Moores, it will supercharge the government’s confiscatory powers by enabling its inclination to tax unrealized income. … It would, in theory, permit the IRS to tax an increase in the value of your home as a capital gain — whether you have sold it or not.

View Comments (4)

Get involved in state level prayer with IFA.

At issue is the “mandatory repatriation tax” (MRT) and a 13 percent stake owned by the Moores in a company that supplies low-cost equipment to small farmers in India. The couple has never received income from this stock because the company reinvests all its profits in the business. … Yet, pursuant to the MRT, the Moores received a $14,729 tax bill on their share of company profits. They sued the government on the grounds that the IRS violated the Sixteenth Amendment. They lost in federal district court and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as legal scholar Steven Calabresi explains at the Volokh Conspiracy:

The court of appeals concluded that realization is not a precondition for income, and so the Moores could be taxed on unrealized gains in wealth. That rationale is not limited to the Moores, or to the particular tax, which the court applied in their case. Rather, under the Ninth Circuit’s analysis, investors might be taxed on their unrealized capital gains in their Vanguard funds or their stock portfolios. Moreover, homeowners might be taxed on their unrealized capital gains in their houses and land …

To grasp the significance of Moore v. United States, it’s necessary to remember that the original Constitution didn’t permit income tax. … The Sixteenth Amendment was passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified in 1913, and it does indeed bestow on Congress “the power to lay and collect taxes on income,” but it was not as clear as it could have been on the precise definition of “income.”

That issue was resolved in 1920, in Eisner v. Macomber, when the Supreme Court ruled that an increase in the value of a stock holding, in the absence of a monetary dividend, isn’t income … A ruling in favor of the government in Moore v. United States will eliminate any restrictions on Congress’ taxing power. …

It’s abundantly clear, however, that the Biden administration and congressional Democrats yearn for unfettered taxing authority. Indeed, they are so worried about the outcome of Moore v. United States that they have demanded the recusal of Justice Alito from the case. … Nonetheless, he responded with a 4-page statement explaining why recusal was inappropriate. …

Share this article to raise awareness of this critical Supreme Court case.

(Excerpt from The American Spectator. Photo Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)