Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States took up a significant case, Charles G. Moore v. United States, that could impact how certain incomes are taxed. This is especially pertinent for those with investments in foreign companies.
What’s the Case About?
The case revolves around a change in the tax law from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which said if you own more than 10% of a foreign company, you might have to pay taxes on the income that company makes, even if you don’t actually receive any of that money. This is commonly referred to as “unrealized income” – money you haven’t actually received or used yet.
For instance, Charles Moore, the person at the center of this case, invested in an Indian company. He had not received any money from this investment, but under the new law, he still had to pay taxes.
Why is This Important?
Traditionally, in the U.S., you don’t pay taxes on investment gains until you actually get those gains – like when you sell the stock. But this law changed that for certain foreign investments. It’s like having to pay taxes on the increased value of your house before you sell it.
What Happened in Court?
In the Supreme Court, Charles Moore’s lawyer argued that this isn’t fair because Moore hasn’t actually made any money from his investment yet, which is like taxing someone just for owning something that’s valuable, not for making money from it.
On the other hand, the U.S. government argues that this tax is legal and has historical backing. They say it’s needed to make sure people can’t avoid taxes by keeping their money in foreign companies.
What Does This Mean for You?
If the court decides in favor of the government, it could mean that taxes on certain foreign investments might stay as they are – you could be taxed on income you haven’t actually received yet. But if the court sides with Moore, it could mean changes to how and when these taxes are applied.
We’re keeping a close eye on this case because it could affect how some of you manage your foreign investments.