{"id":5887,"date":"2024-06-26T13:28:38","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T13:28:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/?p=5887"},"modified":"2024-07-07T04:36:09","modified_gmt":"2024-07-07T04:36:09","slug":"supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/","title":{"rendered":"Decisi\u00f3n hist\u00f3rica de la Corte Suprema en el caso Moore contra Estados Unidos: confirma el controvertido impuesto obligatorio de repatriaci\u00f3n (IMR) y evita una calamidad fiscal millonaria."},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"onefivequestion\">\n<div class=\"container py-4 text-left\">\n<p>En una decisi\u00f3n hist\u00f3rica, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">la Corte Suprema<\/a> Ha confirmado la constitucionalidad de la <a href=\"https:\/\/www.steptoe.com\/en\/news-publications\/the-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-upholds-tcjas-mandatory-repatriation-tax.html\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Impuesto de Repatriaci\u00f3n Obligatorio (IMT)<\/a>, un componente significativo de la <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/tax_cuts_and_jobs_act_of_2017_(tcja)\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Ley de Reducci\u00f3n de Impuestos y Empleos de 2017<\/a>. El caso, <a href=\"http:\/\/chrome-extension:\/\/efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj\/https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-800_jg6o.pdf\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Moore contra Estados Unidos (N\u00famero de expediente: 22-800)<\/a>, tiene profundas implicaciones para la tributaci\u00f3n individual y corporativa en Estados Unidos. Este fallo refuerza la autoridad del Congreso para gravar a los accionistas estadounidenses sobre los ingresos no distribuidos de las corporaciones extranjeras controladas por Estados Unidos. Analicemos los detalles y las ramificaciones de este caso crucial.<\/p>\n<p>    <script\n      async\n      src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3039986354638252\"\n      crossorigin=\"anonymous\"\n    ><\/script><br \/>\n    <ins\n      class=\"adsbygoogle\"\n      style=\"display: block; text-align: center\"\n      data-ad-layout=\"in-article\"\n      data-ad-format=\"fluid\"\n      data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3039986354638252\"\n      data-ad-slot=\"8101689985\"\n    ><br \/>\n    <\/ins><br \/>\n    <script>\n      (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\n    <\/script><\/p>\n<p><strong>Antecedentes del caso<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>El MRT exige que los accionistas estadounidenses de ciertas corporaciones extranjeras incluyan en sus ingresos su parte de las ganancias y beneficios acumulados de la corporaci\u00f3n que no fueron gravados previamente en los EE. UU. Este impuesto se aplica al \u00faltimo a\u00f1o fiscal del <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/foreign_corporation#:~:text=A%20foreign%20corporation%20is%20a,and%20does%20business%20in%20another.\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">corporaci\u00f3n extranjera <\/a>que comienza antes del 1 de enero de 2018 y permite a los accionistas pagar el impuesto en cuotas durante ocho a\u00f1os. El objetivo era incentivar a los ciudadanos estadounidenses y a las empresas multinacionales a repatriar sus ganancias en el extranjero y evitar la transferencia de beneficios a jurisdicciones con impuestos bajos o nulos.<\/p>\n<p>Los peticionarios Charles y Kathleen Moore, representados por Andrew M. Grossman, Esquire, son accionistas estadounidenses de KisanKraft, una <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/957\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Corporaci\u00f3n extranjera controlada por Estados Unidos <\/a>sujeto al MRT. Argumentaron que el MRT viola la <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/constitution\/amendment-16\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Decimosexta Enmienda<\/a>, que permite al Congreso gravar los ingresos de cualquier fuente sin prorrateo. Los Moores sostuvieron que el MRT es un <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/browse\/essay\/artI-S9-C4-1\/ALDE_00013592\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">impuesto directo <\/a>sobre la propiedad, ya que grava las ganancias no realizadas por los accionistas, haciendo referencia a la decisi\u00f3n de la Corte Suprema en <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/252\/189\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Eisner contra Macomber (1920)<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Estados Unidos, representado por la Procuradora General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defendi\u00f3 el MRT como un impuesto sobre la renta v\u00e1lido bajo la Decimosexta Enmienda. El gobierno destac\u00f3 el precedente hist\u00f3rico de los impuestos sobre la renta previos a la ratificaci\u00f3n sobre las ganancias corporativas no distribuidas y compar\u00f3 el MRT con otros impuestos de transferencia sobre <a href=\"https:\/\/www.irs.gov\/businesses\/partnerships#:~:text=A%20partnership%20is%20the%20relationship,Form%20a%20partnership\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">asociaciones<\/a> y <a href=\"https:\/\/www.irs.gov\/businesses\/small-businesses-self-employed\/s-corporations\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Corporaciones S<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>La decisi\u00f3n de la Corte Suprema<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>El 20 de junio de 2024, la Corte Suprema emiti\u00f3 su dictamen, afirmando la constitucionalidad del MRT. El juez Kavanaugh, junto con el presidente Roberts y las juezas Sotomayor, Kagan y Jackson, redact\u00f3 el dictamen mayoritario. La Corte concluy\u00f3 que el MRT, que atribuye los ingresos realizados y no distribuidos de las corporaciones extranjeras controladas por Estados Unidos a sus accionistas estadounidenses y los grava con los impuestos correspondientes, no excede la autoridad constitucional del Congreso.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cuestiones clave y an\u00e1lisis del tribunal<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\">\n        <strong>Atribuci\u00f3n de ingresos:<\/strong> El Tribunal confirm\u00f3 el principio de que el Congreso puede atribuir los ingresos realizados y no distribuidos de una entidad a sus accionistas y gravarlos con impuestos sobre su parte de dichos ingresos. Esto es coherente con la jurisprudencia y las pr\u00e1cticas del Congreso.\n      <\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\">\n        <strong>Precedentes:<\/strong> La decisi\u00f3n cit\u00f3 varios casos que respaldan esta opini\u00f3n, incluidos <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/269\/110\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Asociaci\u00f3n Petrolera Burk-Waggoner contra Hopkins (1925)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/285\/136\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Burnet contra Leininger (1932)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/304\/271\/#:~:text=Held%3A,extent%20of%20their%20distributive%20shares.\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Heiner contra Mellon (1938)<\/a>, y <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/304\/282\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Helvering contra National Grocery Co. (1938)<\/a>. Estos casos afirmaron que el Congreso pod\u00eda gravar tanto a la entidad como a sus accionistas sobre los ingresos no distribuidos.\n      <\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Decimosexta Enmienda y Requisito de Realizaci\u00f3n:<\/strong> La invocaci\u00f3n por parte de los Moore del caso Eisner v. Macomber se consider\u00f3 infundada. El Tribunal aclar\u00f3 que Eisner no abordaba la atribuci\u00f3n de ingresos y no era aplicable a este caso.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Contexto hist\u00f3rico:<\/strong> El Tribunal se\u00f1al\u00f3 la pr\u00e1ctica hist\u00f3rica de gravar a los accionistas sobre los ingresos no distribuidos, haciendo referencia a leyes como la <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Revenue_Act_of_1913#:~:text=The%20Revenue%20Act%20of%201913%20lowered%20average%20tariff%20rates%20from,three%20percent%20of%20the%20population.\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Ley de Ingresos de 1913<\/a> y <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/subtitle-A\/chapter-1\/subchapter-N\/part-III\/subpart-F\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">subparte F <\/a>del C\u00f3digo de Rentas Internas, que grava a los accionistas estadounidenses de corporaciones extranjeras controladas.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Impuestos directos vs. indirectos:<\/strong> El Tribunal reiter\u00f3 que el MRT es un impuesto indirecto sobre la renta, no un impuesto directo sobre la propiedad, y por lo tanto no requiere distribuci\u00f3n entre los estados.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Implicaciones de la decisi\u00f3n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>El fallo de la Corte Suprema confirma que el MRT constituye un ejercicio v\u00e1lido de la facultad tributaria del Congreso conforme a la Constituci\u00f3n. Esta decisi\u00f3n tiene varias implicaciones cruciales:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Validaci\u00f3n de la tributaci\u00f3n de transferencia:<\/strong> El fallo refuerza la capacidad del Congreso de gravar a los accionistas estadounidenses sobre los ingresos de las corporaciones extranjeras, de manera similar a la tributaci\u00f3n de las sociedades y las corporaciones S bajo<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/61\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\"> \u00a7\u00a761(a)(12<\/a>),<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/701\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\"> 701<\/a>, y <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/1366\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">1366(a)\u2013(c)<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Impacto fiscal:<\/strong> La decisi\u00f3n preserva los ingresos federales generados por el MRT, previniendo posibles disrupciones fiscales que podr\u00edan surgir de invalidar el impuesto.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Impuestos futuros:<\/strong> El fallo sienta un precedente sobre la constitucionalidad de impuestos similares sobre los ingresos no distribuidos y respalda el marco m\u00e1s amplio de la pol\u00edtica fiscal internacional de Estados Unidos, incluidas las disposiciones <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/951\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a7\u00a7951\u2013<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/952\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">952 <\/a>y \u00a7\u00a7965(a)(1), (c), (d).<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Limitaciones:<\/strong> La decisi\u00f3n del Tribunal es restrictiva y se limita a las entidades consideradas entidades de transferencia. No autoriza intentos hipot\u00e9ticos de gravar tanto a una entidad como a sus accionistas sobre la misma renta no distribuida.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>An\u00e1lisis de disposiciones y precedentes espec\u00edficos<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Corporaciones S y sociedades<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>T\u00edtulo 26 del C\u00f3digo de los Estados Unidos. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/1361\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a7\u00a71361<\/a>\u2013<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/1362\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">1362<\/a>:<\/strong> Estas secciones definen las corporaciones S y describen los requisitos para su tratamiento fiscal. Las corporaciones S tributan sobre la base de la transferencia de ingresos, donde los ingresos de la corporaci\u00f3n se atribuyen a sus accionistas y tributan como ingresos personales. El m\u00e9todo de la Ley de Retribuci\u00f3n de Impuestos (MRT) para atribuir los ingresos de corporaciones extranjeras a los accionistas estadounidenses es similar a este enfoque, lo que confirma su constitucionalidad.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>\u00a7\u00a761(a)(12), 701, 1366(a)\u2013(c):<\/strong> Estas disposiciones se refieren a la tributaci\u00f3n de las sociedades colectivas, donde los ingresos se transfieren a los socios y tributan como su renta personal. El MRT sigue un principio similar al atribuir los ingresos no distribuidos de las sociedades extranjeras a sus accionistas estadounidenses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Corporaciones extranjeras controladas y Subparte F<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>\u00a7\u00a7951\u2013952:<\/strong> Estas secciones, que forman parte de la subparte F del C\u00f3digo de Rentas Internas, exigen que los accionistas estadounidenses de sociedades extranjeras controladas declaren y paguen impuestos sobre ciertos tipos de ingresos, incluso si no se distribuyen. La Ley de Rentas Internas (MRT) ampl\u00eda este principio, reforzando su conformidad con las pol\u00edticas tributarias establecidas.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Disposiciones espec\u00edficas del MRT<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/965\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a7965(a)(1), (c), (d)<\/a>:<\/strong> Estas secciones describen los detalles del MRT, incluyendo su aplicaci\u00f3n a las ganancias acumuladas de corporaciones extranjeras y las tasas impositivas. La ratificaci\u00f3n de estas disposiciones por parte de la Corte Suprema subraya su coherencia con los principios tributarios constitucionales.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Contexto hist\u00f3rico y pr\u00e1cticas de larga data<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>La decisi\u00f3n del Tribunal enfatiz\u00f3 el contexto hist\u00f3rico de la legislaci\u00f3n tributaria estadounidense, en particular la pr\u00e1ctica de gravar a los accionistas sobre las rentas no distribuidas. Esta pr\u00e1ctica se remonta a las primeras leyes del impuesto sobre la renta, como la <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Revenue_Act_of_1913#:~:text=The%20Revenue%20Act%20of%201913%20imposed%20a%20one%20percent%20tax,more%20than%20%24500%2C000%20per%20year.\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Ley de Ingresos de 1913<\/a>, que gravaba a los accionistas sobre las rentas de las sociedades constituidas para evadir impuestos. La Corte se\u00f1al\u00f3 que este precedente hist\u00f3rico respalda la constitucionalidad del MRT.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Razonamiento y conclusi\u00f3n del Tribunal<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>La Corte Suprema concluy\u00f3 que la Ley de Reformas de la Magistratura no excede la autoridad constitucional del Congreso. La decisi\u00f3n destac\u00f3 varios puntos clave:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/constitution-conan\/article-1\/section-8\/clause-1\/overview-of-spending-clause#:~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%208%2C%20Clause,the%20United%20States%3B%20.%20.%20.\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Art\u00edculo I, \u00a78, cl. 1<\/a>:<\/strong> Esta cl\u00e1usula otorga al Congreso amplias facultades tributarias, que incluyen la imposici\u00f3n de impuestos sobre la renta sin prorrateo. La Ley de Impuestos sobre la Renta (MRT) se enmarca en este marco, ya que grava la renta atribuida a los accionistas.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Pr\u00e1ctica hist\u00f3rica:<\/strong> La Corte enfatiz\u00f3 la pr\u00e1ctica establecida desde hace mucho tiempo de gravar las rentas no distribuidas atribuidas a accionistas o socios, reforzando la legitimidad del MRT.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Precedente:<\/strong> El an\u00e1lisis que realiz\u00f3 la Corte de casos como Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. Hopkins, Heiner v. Mellon y Helvering v. National Grocery Co. demostr\u00f3 que la imposici\u00f3n de impuestos a los accionistas sobre los ingresos no distribuidos se ha mantenido consistentemente.<\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong>Confianza err\u00f3nea en Eisner v. Macomber:<\/strong> La interpretaci\u00f3n de los Moore en el caso Eisner v. Macomber fue rechazada. El Tribunal aclar\u00f3 que Eisner no abord\u00f3 la atribuci\u00f3n de ingresos de una corporaci\u00f3n a sus accionistas. En cambio, reafirm\u00f3 los principios establecidos en los casos Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. Hopkins, Heiner v. Mellon y Helvering v. National Grocery Co., que permiten al Congreso atribuir los ingresos no distribuidos a los accionistas y gravarlos en consecuencia.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>    <script\n      async\n      src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3039986354638252\"\n      crossorigin=\"anonymous\"\n    ><\/script><br \/>\n    <ins\n      class=\"adsbygoogle\"\n      style=\"display: block; text-align: center\"\n      data-ad-layout=\"in-article\"\n      data-ad-format=\"fluid\"\n      data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3039986354638252\"\n      data-ad-slot=\"8101689985\"\n    ><br \/>\n    <\/ins><br \/>\n    <script>\n      (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\n    <\/script><\/p>\n<p>El fallo de la Corte Suprema en el caso Moore contra Estados Unidos confirma definitivamente la autoridad del Congreso para gravar a los accionistas estadounidenses sobre las rentas no distribuidas de las sociedades extranjeras controladas. Esta decisi\u00f3n refuerza los principios del derecho tributario estadounidense y proporciona un marco claro para futuras pol\u00edticas tributarias. Al ratificar la MRT, la Corte ha garantizado la estabilidad y la previsibilidad del sistema tributario estadounidense, salvaguardando una fuente crucial de ingresos federales y sentando un precedente sobre la constitucionalidad de impuestos similares.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), a significant component of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The case, Moore v. United States (Docket Number: 22-800), has profound implications for individual and corporate taxation in the United States. This ruling reinforces Congress&#8217;s authority to &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/\" class=\"more-link\">Seguir leyendo<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Supreme Court&#8217;s Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5876,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5887","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court&#039;s Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_ES\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court&#039;s Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), a significant component of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The case, Moore v. United States (Docket Number: 22-800), has profound implications for individual and corporate taxation in the United States. This ruling reinforces Congress&#8217;s authority to &hellip; Continue reading &quot;Supreme Court&#8217;s Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity&quot;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-06-26T13:28:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-07T04:36:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/supreme.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1230\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"703\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Alex Oware\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Escrito por\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Alex Oware\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tiempo de lectura\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutos\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Alex Oware\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court&#8217;s Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-26T13:28:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-07T04:36:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1253,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/supreme.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Uncategorized\"],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/supreme.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-26T13:28:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-07T04:36:09+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/supreme.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/supreme.jpg\",\"width\":1230,\"height\":703},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/07\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/07\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":123,\"height\":74,\"caption\":\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/oandgaccounting.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929\",\"name\":\"Alex Oware\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/84b4188e8b9b32ada06bf7e632d4090f6fe1ff809e371e025c4d77194e2597d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/84b4188e8b9b32ada06bf7e632d4090f6fe1ff809e371e025c4d77194e2597d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/84b4188e8b9b32ada06bf7e632d4090f6fe1ff809e371e025c4d77194e2597d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Alex Oware\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/","og_locale":"es_ES","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court's Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","og_description":"In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), a significant component of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The case, Moore v. United States (Docket Number: 22-800), has profound implications for individual and corporate taxation in the United States. This ruling reinforces Congress&#8217;s authority to &hellip; Continue reading \"Supreme Court&#8217;s Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity\"","og_url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/","og_site_name":"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","article_published_time":"2024-06-26T13:28:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-07T04:36:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1230,"height":703,"url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/supreme.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Alex Oware","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Escrito por":"Alex Oware","Tiempo de lectura":"6 minutos"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/"},"author":{"name":"Alex Oware","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929"},"headline":"Supreme Court&#8217;s Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity","datePublished":"2024-06-26T13:28:38+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-07T04:36:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/"},"wordCount":1253,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/supreme.jpg","articleSection":["Uncategorized"],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/","name":"Supreme Court's Landmark Decision in Moore v. United States: Upholds Controversial Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), Prevents Trillions in Fiscal Calamity - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/supreme.jpg","datePublished":"2024-06-26T13:28:38+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-07T04:36:09+00:00","inLanguage":"es","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/supreme-courts-landmark-decision-in-moore-v-united-states-upholds-controversial-mandatory-repatriation-tax-mrt-prevents-trillions-in-fiscal-calamity\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/supreme.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/supreme.jpg","width":1230,"height":703},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/","name":"Impuestos y contabilidad de petr\u00f3leo y gas","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#organization","name":"Impuestos y contabilidad de petr\u00f3leo y gas","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/logo.png","width":123,"height":74,"caption":"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929","name":"Alex Oware","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/84b4188e8b9b32ada06bf7e632d4090f6fe1ff809e371e025c4d77194e2597d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/84b4188e8b9b32ada06bf7e632d4090f6fe1ff809e371e025c4d77194e2597d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/84b4188e8b9b32ada06bf7e632d4090f6fe1ff809e371e025c4d77194e2597d5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Alex Oware"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5887","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5887"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5887\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}