In the landmark case MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court addressed a critical issue: Does Congress have the constitutional authority to tax the undistributed income of American-controlled foreign corporations at the shareholder level? The Court’s decision, rooted in historical precedents and constitutional interpretations, affirmed the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), thus upholding Congress’s broad taxing powers.

Case Overview

The Moores invested in KisanKraft, an American-controlled foreign corporation, which generated substantial income from 2006 to 2017 but did not distribute it to its American shareholders. Under the MRT, the Moores were taxed on their pro rata share of KisanKraft’s accumulated income, resulting in a tax bill of $14,729 for the 2017 tax year. The Moores challenged the tax, claiming it violated the Direct Tax Clause of the Constitution.

Legal Framework

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article I, §8, cl. 1 – Grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes.
• Sixteenth Amendment – Permits Congress to levy taxes on incomes without apportionment among the states.

Relevant Statutes:

• 26 U.S.C. §§1361–1362 – S corporations and partnerships taxed on a pass-through basis.
• 26 U.S.C. §§61(a)(12), 701, 1366(a)-(c) – Attributes income of pass-through entities to their owners.
• 26 U.S.C. §§951-952 – Subpart F, attributing income of American-controlled foreign corporations to American shareholders.
• 26 U.S.C. §965(a)(1), (c), (d) – Mandatory Repatriation Tax provisions.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Pass-through Taxation and Congressional Authority: Congress has long treated certain entities, such as S corporations and partnerships, as pass-throughs, taxing their income directly to the shareholders or partners. This practice is well-established and supported by precedent cases like Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. Hopkins and Burnet v. Leininger. The MRT operates on a similar principle by attributing the undistributed income of American-controlled foreign corporations to their shareholders.

2. Historical Precedents: The Court cited numerous precedents affirming Congress’s authority to tax shareholders on an entity’s undistributed income. Key cases include:

• Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. Hopkins, 269 U. S. 110
• Burnet v. Leininger, 285 U. S. 136
• Heiner v. Mellon, 304 U. S. 271
• Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U. S. 282

Court’s Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the MRT, which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders and then taxes the shareholders on their portions of that income, does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority. The decision emphasized that:

• Congress can choose to tax either the entity or its shareholders on undistributed income.
• The MRT is consistent with historical precedents and Congress’s long-established practices.
• The Constitution does not require fiscal calamity by rendering vast swaths of the tax code unconstitutional.

These cases collectively establish that Congress can choose to tax either the entity or its owners on the entity’s income, whether distributed or not.

3. The Misplaced Reliance on Eisner v. Macomber: The Moores argued that Eisner v. Macomber precluded the MRT by requiring realization of income. However, the Court clarified that Eisner did not address the attribution of income and was not relevant to the MRT’s constitutionality. Subsequent cases, such as Heiner v. Mellon and Helvering v. National Grocery Co., explicitly allowed for attribution.

4. Consistency with Historical Practice: The Court noted that since the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has consistently taxed undistributed income at the shareholder level in various contexts, reinforcing the constitutionality of such taxes. The MRT, being a continuation of this practice, is aligned with historical precedent.

5. Addressing the Moores’ Distinctions: The Moores attempted to distinguish the MRT from other taxes on pass-through entities, but the Court found these distinctions unpersuasive. The argument that partnerships and S corporations are fundamentally different from foreign corporations under the MRT was rejected, as both types of entities can be taxed directly at the shareholder level.

6. Legislative History and Policy Considerations: The MRT was part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, aimed at addressing accumulated foreign income not previously taxed. The Court emphasized the significant fiscal implications of invalidating the MRT, which would undermine a substantial portion of the Internal Revenue Code and result in massive revenue losses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the MRT, affirming Congress’s authority to attribute and tax the undistributed income of American-controlled foreign corporations at the shareholder level. The decision underscores the broad scope of congressional taxing power and the consistent application of tax principles across different entity types. The ruling, while specific to pass-through entities, reaffirms the constitutional basis for various existing tax provisions and supports the stability of the U.S. tax system.

Implications

The decision in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES ensures the continuity of critical tax provisions that attribute income to shareholders, safeguarding significant federal revenue streams. It also clarifies the legal framework for future tax legislation, particularly concerning international taxation and the treatment of undistributed income.

Limitations

The ruling is narrowly tailored to pass-through entities and does not address potential congressional efforts to double-tax both an entity and its shareholders on the same income. Additionally, the question of whether realization is a constitutional requirement for income taxes remains unresolved, leaving room for future legal challenges and interpretations.

This case serves as a pivotal reference for understanding the intersection of tax law, constitutional authority, and the practical implications of fiscal policy in the United States.