Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1-2025

Abstract

In his majority opinion in Moore, Justice Brett Kavanaugh listed several provisions of the code that could be subject to a constitutional challenge if realization were a constitutional requirement, as suggested by Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas, and Neil M. Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote: In short, the Moores cannot meaningfully distinguish the [mandatory repatriation tax] from similar taxes such as taxes on partnerships, on S corporations, and on subpart F income. The upshot is that the Moores’ argument, taken to its logical conclusion, could render vast swaths of the Internal Revenue Code unconstitutional. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. section 305(c) (deemed stock distributions); sections 446, 448 (accrual accounting); section 701 (partnership taxation); sections 951-965 (subpart F); section 951A (passthrough tax on global intangible low-taxed income); section 1256(a) (certain futures contracts); section 1272(a) (original-issue discount instruments); sections 1361-1379 (S corporations); sections 2501-2524 (gift taxes).

Comments

Reprinted with the permission of Tax Analysts.

Download


Included in

Tax Law Commons

Share

COinS