OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court may be preparing to put the kibosh on at least a few of President Joe Biden’s key political and policy priorities, according to a new assessment, and that includes the administration’s push to impose higher taxes just on higher earners.
Moore v. United States, for example, could have the greatest influence on Biden, even though the nation’s highest court will also hear cases during their current session involving the right to bear arms, the authority of federal agencies, and whether the phrase “Trump too small” can be trademarked.
In “Moore,” according to SCOTUS Blog, justices will decide “[w]hether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.” The amendment, which was passed by Congress in July 1909 and ratified in February 1913, authorized the Congress to impose an income tax for the first time.
Biden, however, wants to use it to impose a so-called “wealth tax,” which critics have said is nothing short of punishing success — the polar opposite of what America’s capitalist and economic system was founded to do.
“Reward work, not just wealth. Pass my proposal for a billionaire minimum tax,” Biden said during the State of the Union address earlier this year. “Because no billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than a school teacher or a firefighter.”
The Washington Examiner reported earlier this year: “Biden later proposed a 25% annual tax on all gains to wealth in excess of $100 million in a given year, including unrealized capital gains which aren’t currently taxable. The White House says that the tax would only apply to the top 0.01% of the highest earners. While the proposal faces long odds with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, it could be nixed permanently if the high court rules such a tax is unconstitutional.”
Regarding the Moore case, the outlet said it doesn’t “involve huge amounts of money, but center around the same issues of taxation and the definition of the word ‘income.'”
“Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state-based couple, made a nearly $40,000 investment into an Indian company in 2005 and never received any money or other payments from the company even though it made a profit every year,” noted the Examiner.
Several organizations and individuals have filed amicus briefs before the high court opposing Biden’s ‘tax the rich’ scheme.
“Businesses rely on predictability and certainty in tax laws to plan their affairs,” said an amicus brief filed this month by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business organization.
“If income can be redefined as easily as the Ninth Circuit says, then businesses and their shareholders could be subject to taxes on anything that the government later deems “income”—even increases in value that could disappear as valuations or markets fluctuate. Such a realization free approach risks profound uncertainty in an area of the law that demands certainty,” the group argued further.
“Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, this Court has consistently interpreted “income” as referring to amounts that the taxpayer realizes in a particular accounting period,” the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute\’s brief, filed in March, states. “Therefore, this Court has consistently treated contemporaneous realization of income as a constitutional prerequisite to a tax that is not subject to the apportionment requirement set forth in Article I.”
“In holding that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax is constitutional, the Ninth Circuit rejected this well-established principle and contradicted this Court’s precedents. The Ninth Circuit’s approach contorted the definition of ‘income’ beyond recognition,” the brief continued.
Meanwhile, the Court will hear a number of cases this fall that offer promising chances to restrain the federal administrative state.
The court also agreed to hear a case that could bring back the jury trial to a class of civil cases that are currently handled solely by judges who work for administrative agencies.
