SCOTUS: Moore v United States - Tax on unrealized income
Issue before or regarding the Supreme Court of The United States

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared hesitant to upend a tax on Americans who have invested in certain foreign corporations, as they pondered the meaning of "income" in a case that could undermine efforts by some Democratic lawmakers to impose a wealth tax on the very rich.

The justices heard arguments in an appeal by Charles and Kathleen Moore - a retired couple from Redmond, Washington - of a lower court's decision rejecting their challenge to the tax on foreign company earnings, even though those profits have not been distributed to shareholders.

More:

US Supreme Court wary of upending tax on Americans' foreign earnings

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared hesitant to upend a tax on Americans who have invested in certain foreign corporations, as they pondered the meaning of "income" in a case that could undermine efforts by some Democratic lawmakers to impose a wealth tax on the very rich.
www.reuters.com
 
They are more worried about implications than whether or not it's Constitutional. It sounds like this is going to end up getting justified by a total perversion of logic much like the ACA decision.
 
This would be a total disaster for America.
I know a liberal lawyer up in Boulder and he's already doing this with tenant's rents and landlords.
Suing landlords who rent for market prices!

 
So if the SCOTUS agrees that unrealized gains should be considered as taxable income does that mean that every year my property taxes go up (they always go up) that in addition to paying the property tax I also have to pay a tax on my unrealized gain as well?

If this ruling goes through, I get the feeling that a bunch of folks from the old neighborhood are gonna run into a whole bunch of "unrealized losses" and file their tax return accordingly. Push that envelope.
 
 
Goldhedge said:
This would be a total disaster for America.
I know a liberal lawyer up in Boulder and he's already doing this with tenant's rents and landlords.
Suing landlords who rent for market prices!

Click to expand...
And that's when about 100 million Americans should exercise their 2nd amendment rights and throw them all out of DC. Shut down the entire criminal enterprise and build it back the way it was intended by the constitution.
 
Not related to the court case specifically, but to the topic:

Unrealized Gains Tax is an Economic Fallacy

"Taxing unrealized capital gains from property, stocks, and other assets is a bad idea. It undermines economic growth, stifles innovation, and infringes on personal liberty." ~Vance Ginn
www.aier.org
 
"hinder prosperity and individual freedom."

That'what most politicians think is the purpose of government.

It's certainly how they act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…