{"id":5892,"date":"2024-06-28T06:05:47","date_gmt":"2024-06-28T06:05:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/?p=5892"},"modified":"2024-07-01T17:05:59","modified_gmt":"2024-07-01T17:05:59","slug":"why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00bfPor qu\u00e9 la Corte Suprema dictamin\u00f3 en MOORE ET UX. v. ESTADOS UNIDOS que la MRT es constitucional?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"onefivequestion\">\n<div class=\"container py-4 text-left\">\n<p>En el caso hist\u00f3rico <a href=\"http:\/\/chrome-extension:\/\/efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj\/https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-800_jg6o.pdf\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">MOORE ET UX. contra ESTADOS UNIDOS<\/a>, la Corte Suprema enfrent\u00f3 el desaf\u00edo de determinar 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>bajo <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/browse\/article-1\/section-8\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Art\u00edculo I, \u00a7\u00a78 y 9<\/a>, y el <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/constitution\/amendment-16\/#:~:text=The%20Congress%20shall%20have%20power,to%20any%20census%20or%20enumeration.\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Decimosexta Enmienda<\/a>. El fallo de la Corte del 20 de junio de 2024 no solo confirm\u00f3 la constitucionalidad de la MRT, sino que tambi\u00e9n ratific\u00f3 principios de larga data del derecho tributario estadounidense. Este art\u00edculo profundiza en los intrincados detalles del caso, explorando por qu\u00e9... <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Corte Suprema<\/a> consider\u00f3 constitucional la MRT y las implicaciones m\u00e1s amplias de esta decisi\u00f3n.<\/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><strong>Los Moore y KisanKraft<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Charles y Kathleen Moore invirtieron $40,000 en KisanKraft, una corporaci\u00f3n extranjera controlada por estadounidenses con sede en India. Entre 2006 y 2017, KisanKraft gener\u00f3 ingresos sustanciales, pero no distribuy\u00f3 nada a sus accionistas estadounidenses. La promulgaci\u00f3n 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> Introdujo el MRT, un impuesto \u00fanico sobre los ingresos acumulados y no distribuidos de las corporaciones extranjeras controladas por Estados Unidos, con el objetivo de abordar la importante p\u00e9rdida de ingresos derivada de los ingresos extranjeros no gravados. La parte de los Moore en estos ingresos result\u00f3 en una factura fiscal de $14,729, que pagaron, pero luego solicitaron un reembolso, argumentando que el MRT era un impuesto directo inconstitucional.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Marco legal y precedentes<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Referencias legales clave<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\">\n        <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>-1362:<\/strong> Estas secciones definen <a href=\"https:\/\/www.irs.gov\/businesses\/small-businesses-self-employed\/s-corporations\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Corporaciones S<\/a> y establecer un sistema de tributaci\u00f3n de transferencia, en el que los ingresos de la entidad se gravan a nivel de los accionistas, apoyando el concepto de que el Congreso puede elegir c\u00f3mo gravar los ingresos de la entidad.\n      <\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\">\n        <strong>T\u00edtulo 26 del C\u00f3digo de los Estados Unidos. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/951\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a7\u00a7951<\/a>\u2013<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/952\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">952<\/a>:<\/strong> Estas secciones, parte de <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>, de manera similar, atribuyen los ingresos de las corporaciones extranjeras controladas por Estados Unidos a los accionistas estadounidenses, lo que refuerza la capacidad del Congreso de gravar a los accionistas sobre los ingresos no distribuidos.\n      <\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\">\n        <strong>T\u00edtulo 26 del C\u00f3digo de los Estados Unidos. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\/965\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a7\u00a7965(a)(1), (c), (d)<\/a>:<\/strong> Estas secciones detallan espec\u00edficamente las disposiciones de la MRT, que se aplicaron retroactivamente a los ingresos acumulados por corporaciones extranjeras.\n      <\/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><strong>An\u00e1lisis y fundamento de la Corte Suprema<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Constitucionalidad del MRT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Art\u00edculo I y la Decimosexta Enmienda<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>La Corte enfatiz\u00f3 que el Congreso tiene amplias facultades, conforme al Art\u00edculo I, para imponer impuestos, tanto directos como indirectos. La Decimosexta Enmienda aclar\u00f3 que los impuestos sobre la renta no requieren prorrateo entre los estados, clasific\u00e1ndolos como impuestos indirectos. El Impuesto sobre la Renta M\u00ednima (IMRT), al ser un impuesto sobre la renta atribuida a los accionistas, se enmarca en este marco.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Casos precedentes que respaldan la decisi\u00f3n<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/269\/110\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Asociaci\u00f3n Petrolera Burk-Waggoner<\/a>. contra Hopkins, 269 US 110:<\/strong> Se establece que el Congreso puede gravar tanto a la entidad como a los socios\/accionistas sobre las rentas no distribuidas.\n      <\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/285\/136\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Burnet contra Leininger, 285 US 136<\/a>:<\/strong> Reafirm\u00f3 la autoridad del Congreso para elegir el m\u00e9todo de tributaci\u00f3n de los ingresos de las sociedades.\n      <\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/304\/271\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Heiner contra Mellon, 304 US 271<\/a>:<\/strong> Mantuvo la tributaci\u00f3n de los socios sobre los ingresos sociales no distribuidos, incluso si la ley estatal les prohib\u00eda recibirlos.\n      <\/li>\n<li style=\"padding-bottom: 10px\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/304\/282\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Helvering contra National Grocery Co., 304 US 282<\/a>:<\/strong> Confirm\u00f3 la facultad del Congreso para gravar a los accionistas sobre los ingresos no distribuidos de una corporaci\u00f3n.\n      <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Abordando los argumentos de los Moore<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Distinguiendo sociedades y corporaciones S<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Los Moore argumentaron que las sociedades colectivas son intr\u00ednsecamente diferentes de las corporaciones y que las corporaciones S implican el consentimiento de los accionistas para la tributaci\u00f3n indirecta. El Tribunal desestim\u00f3 estas distinciones, afirmando que el Congreso tiene la facultad discrecional de gravar a las entidades como considere oportuno, ya sea directa o indirectamente a trav\u00e9s de los accionistas.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Interpretaci\u00f3n err\u00f3nea de Eisner v. Macomber<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>La dependencia de los Moore de <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/252\/189\/\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Eisner contra Macomber, 252 US 189<\/a><\/strong> se consider\u00f3 fuera de lugar. El Tribunal aclar\u00f3 que <strong>Eisner contra Macomber<\/strong> no abord\u00f3 la atribuci\u00f3n de ingresos y casos posteriores como <strong>Heiner contra Mellon y Helvering contra National Grocery Co.<\/strong> definitivamente permitida para tal atribuci\u00f3n.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Implicaciones pr\u00e1cticas de la decisi\u00f3n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>La sentencia tiene importantes implicaciones para la <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/26\" rel=\"noopener\" target=\"_blank\">C\u00f3digo de Rentas Internas<\/a> y la pol\u00edtica tributaria estadounidense. La preservaci\u00f3n del MRT previene posibles calamidades fiscales al garantizar la tributaci\u00f3n continua de billones de d\u00f3lares en ganancias extranjeras. La decisi\u00f3n ratifica la pr\u00e1ctica tradicional del Congreso de gravar los ingresos no distribuidos atribuidos a los accionistas, preservando as\u00ed la integridad y la funcionalidad del sistema tributario estadounidense.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Limitaciones de la Sentencia<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>La decisi\u00f3n de la Corte Suprema es restrictiva y espec\u00edfica para las entidades de transferencia. No autoriza al Congreso a gravar tanto a la entidad como a sus accionistas sobre los mismos ingresos, ni resuelve si la realizaci\u00f3n es un requisito constitucional para un impuesto sobre la renta. Casos futuros podr\u00edan explorar m\u00e1s a fondo estos l\u00edmites.<\/p>\n<p>La sentencia del Tribunal Supremo en <strong>MOORE ET UX. contra ESTADOS UNIDOS<\/strong> Subraya la validez constitucional del MRT y reafirma la autoridad del Congreso para gravar las rentas no distribuidas de sociedades extranjeras atribuidas a accionistas estadounidenses. De esta forma, la Corte preserv\u00f3 la estabilidad y eficacia del sistema tributario estadounidense, evitando una p\u00e9rdida potencialmente devastadora de ingresos fiscales. Esta decisi\u00f3n se alinea con precedentes hist\u00f3ricos y pr\u00e1cticas legislativas, aportando claridad y continuidad a la aplicaci\u00f3n de la legislaci\u00f3n tributaria estadounidense.<\/p>\n<p>La decisi\u00f3n en <strong>MOORE ET UX. contra ESTADOS UNIDOS<\/strong> Es un testimonio de los principios perdurables del derecho tributario y de la flexibilidad otorgada al Congreso para estructurar la tributaci\u00f3n de la renta. Constituye un momento crucial en la evoluci\u00f3n continua de la pol\u00edtica tributaria y su adecuaci\u00f3n a los mandatos constitucionales.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the landmark case MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court faced the challenge of determining the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) under Article I, \u00a7\u00a78 and 9, and the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court&#8217;s ruling on June 20, 2024, not only affirmed the MRT&#8217;s constitutionality but also upheld long-standing principles of &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional?&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5893,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional? - 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\/staging\/es\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_ES\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional? - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the landmark case MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court faced the challenge of determining the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) under Article I, \u00a7\u00a78 and 9, and the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court&#8217;s ruling on June 20, 2024, not only affirmed the MRT&#8217;s constitutionality but also upheld long-standing principles of &hellip; Continue reading &quot;Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional?&quot;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-06-28T06:05:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-01T17:05:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1327\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"758\" \/>\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=\"4 minutos\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Alex Oware\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/person\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929\"},\"headline\":\"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional?\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-28T06:05:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-01T17:05:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\"},\"wordCount\":797,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Uncategorized\"],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\",\"name\":\"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional? - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-28T06:05:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-01T17:05:59+00:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg\",\"width\":1327,\"height\":758},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/\",\"name\":\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#organization\",\"name\":\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/logo.png\",\"width\":123,\"height\":74,\"caption\":\"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/person\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929\",\"name\":\"Alex Oware\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/818d35e7f1b55ca6674f5b7750860e33?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/818d35e7f1b55ca6674f5b7750860e33?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Alex Oware\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional? - 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\/staging\/es\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/","og_locale":"es_ES","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional? - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","og_description":"In the landmark case MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court faced the challenge of determining the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) under Article I, \u00a7\u00a78 and 9, and the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court&#8217;s ruling on June 20, 2024, not only affirmed the MRT&#8217;s constitutionality but also upheld long-standing principles of &hellip; Continue reading \"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional?\"","og_url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/","og_site_name":"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","article_published_time":"2024-06-28T06:05:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-01T17:05:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1327,"height":758,"url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Alex Oware","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Escrito por":"Alex Oware","Tiempo de lectura":"4 minutos"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/"},"author":{"name":"Alex Oware","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/person\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929"},"headline":"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional?","datePublished":"2024-06-28T06:05:47+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-01T17:05:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/"},"wordCount":797,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg","articleSection":["Uncategorized"],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/","name":"Why Did the Supreme Court Rule in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES That the MRT is Constitutional? - O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg","datePublished":"2024-06-28T06:05:47+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-01T17:05:59+00:00","inLanguage":"es","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-in-moore-et-ux-v-united-states-that-the-mrt-is-constitutional\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/whydidsuprime.jpg","width":1327,"height":758},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#website","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/","name":"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#organization","name":"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/logo.png","width":123,"height":74,"caption":"O&amp;G Tax and Accounting"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/person\/7abb5bc95fed73694b6d4e1d516c1929","name":"Alex Oware","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/818d35e7f1b55ca6674f5b7750860e33?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/818d35e7f1b55ca6674f5b7750860e33?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Alex Oware"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5892"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5909,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892\/revisions\/5909"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oandgaccounting.com\/staging\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}