What is the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) and How Does It Affect American Shareholders of Foreign Corporations?

What is the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) and How Does It Affect American Shareholders of Foreign Corporations?

The Supreme Court recently decided on the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) in the case of MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES. The ruling, which upheld the MRT, is significant in the realm of U.S. tax law, particularly for American shareholders of foreign corporations. This article delves into the details of the case, the court’s reasoning, and the broader implications for American shareholders.

Understanding the MRT

The Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) was introduced as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Its primary aim is to tax the accumulated, undistributed income of American-controlled foreign corporations. This measure was introduced to address the issue of trillions of dollars in income that had been earned by these foreign corporations but had not been subject to U.S. taxation.

Facts of the Case:

Charles and Kathleen Moore invested in KisanKraft, an American-controlled foreign corporation. From 2006 to 2017, KisanKraft accumulated significant income without distributing it to its American shareholders. When the MRT was applied retroactively, the Moores were hit with a $14,729 tax bill on their pro rata share of KisanKraft’s income. They paid the tax but subsequently sued for a refund, arguing that the MRT violated the Direct Tax Clause of the Constitution.

Key Legal Provisions Referenced

  • 26 U.S.C. §§13611362: These sections pertain to S corporations, which are taxed on a pass-through basis, meaning the entity’s income is taxed at the shareholder level rather than the corporate level. This is relevant because the MRT similarly attributes income of foreign corporations to their American shareholders.
  • 26 U.S.C. §§951-952: These sections are part of subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code, which attributes certain income of American-controlled foreign corporations to U.S. shareholders. The MRT expands on this concept by attributing previously untaxed accumulated income to shareholders.
  • 26 U.S.C. §965(a)(1), (c), (d): These sections detail the specific rates and deductions applicable under the MRT.

The Court’s Analysis and Conclusions

Constitutional Authority: The Supreme Court held that the MRT does not exceed Congress’s constitutional authority. The Constitution grants Congress broad power to lay and collect taxes, including direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxes must be apportioned, but income taxes, as clarified by the Sixteenth Amendment, are not required to be apportioned.

Precedent and Practice: The court’s decision was strongly influenced by longstanding precedents and congressional practices that allow for the attribution of an entity’s income to its shareholders. Cases such as Burk-Waggoner Oil Assn. v. Hopkins, Burnet v. Leininger, Heiner v. Mellon, and Helvering v. National Grocery Co. were pivotal in affirming Congress’s authority to tax shareholders on undistributed income of entities.

MRT as Income Tax: The Court reasoned that the MRT taxes realized income, specifically the income realized by KisanKraft and attributed to the Moores. This approach aligns with the taxation of partnerships, S corporations, and subpart F income, where income is attributed to partners or shareholders and taxed accordingly.

Addressing the Moores’ Arguments

Distinguishing MRT from Other Taxes: The Moores attempted to differentiate the MRT from other pass-through taxes by arguing that partnerships are not separate entities and that S corporation shareholders consent to taxation. The Court dismissed these distinctions, affirming that Congress has the authority to tax the undistributed income of various entities at the shareholder level.

Reliance on Eisner v. Macomber: The Moores’ reliance on Eisner v. Macomber was deemed misplaced. The Court clarified that Eisner did not address the attribution of income and was not relevant to the issue at hand.

Implications and Limitations

Narrow Holding: The ruling is limited to the taxation of shareholders of pass-through entities on undistributed income realized by the entity. It does not authorize hypothetical scenarios where both the entity and its shareholders are taxed on the same income.

Congressional Authority: The decision reinforces Congress’s authority to impose similar taxes in the future, maintaining the stability and predictability of the U.S. tax system. However, it does not address whether realization is a constitutional requirement for income taxes, leaving that question open for future cases.

The Supreme Court’s decision in MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES upholding the MRT underscores the broad taxing power of Congress, particularly in addressing the issue of undistributed foreign income. This ruling has significant implications for American shareholders of foreign corporations, affirming the constitutionality of the MRT and similar taxation mechanisms. As international tax policies continue to evolve, this decision provides a clear framework for understanding the reach of U.S. tax law in the global context.

***Disclaimer: This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant -client relationship results**

« »