The Supreme Court has emerged as a significant challenge for President Joe Biden, consistently issuing rulings that are contrary to his policy objectives. It seems that the Court is positioned to impede the puppet’s efforts to push the nation even more towards the left end of the political spectrum.
For instance, the potential abandonment of Biden’s proposals to impose taxes on individuals with high incomes may arise following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which deemed Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan of over $430 billion to be unconstitutional.
One notable case that might potentially exert a significant impact on President Biden is Moore v. United States. It is worth noting that the court is scheduled to deliberate on many cases during the upcoming autumn term, encompassing matters like the right to bear weapons, the jurisdiction of federal agencies, and the potential trademark ability of the phrase “Trump too small.”
The focal point of the discussion revolves around President Biden’s recurrently articulated inclination towards a wealth tax and the feasibility of its implementation.
According to SCOTUS Blog, the primary inquiry in this issue pertains to the authorization granted by the 16th Amendment to Congress, specifically “Whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.” The aforementioned amendment granted the Legislative Branch the legal authority to impose an income tax, marking a significant milestone in the nation’s history.
During the State of the Union speech earlier this year, President Biden expressed his support for the passage of a proposal pertaining to the implementation of a minimum tax for billionaires. “Reward work, not just wealth. Pass my proposal for a billionaire minimum tax. Because no billionaire should pay a lower tax rate than a school teacher or a firefighter.”
According to The Washington Examiner, “Biden later proposed a 25% annual tax on all gains to wealth in excess of $100 million in a given year, including unrealized capital gains which aren’t currently taxable. The White House says that the tax would only apply to the top 0.01% of the highest earners. While the proposal faces long odds with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, it could be nixed permanently if the high court rules such a tax is unconstitutional.”
“The specifics of the Moore case don’t involve huge amounts of money, but center around the same issues of taxation and the definition of the word ‘income,’” the Examiner continued. “Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state-based couple, made a nearly $40,000 investment into an Indian company in 2005 and never received any money or other payments from the company even though it made a profit every year.”
Numerous entities have submitted amicus briefs in the legal matter, among them the libertarian CATO Institute, which posited that, in accordance with constitutional principles, President Biden’s action would be deemed unconstitutional.
According to the brief filed by the group in March, “Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, this Court has consistently interpreted “income” as referring to amounts that the taxpayer realizes in a particular accounting period. Therefore, this Court has consistently treated contemporaneous realization of income as a constitutional prerequisite to a tax that is not subject to the apportionment requirement set forth in Article I.”
“In holding that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax is constitutional, the Ninth Circuit rejected this well-established principle and contradicted this Court’s precedents. The Ninth Circuit’s approach contorted the definition of ‘income’ beyond recognition,” the brief adds.
The group expressed their concern that “If a tax on unrealized investment holdings like the Mandatory Repatriation Tax can be treated as an ‘income’ tax, then anything can be treated as an income tax. And if anything can be treated as an income tax, then the Sixteenth Amendment’s limitation to ‘income’ taxes is meaningless.”
According to an amicus brief submitted this month by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Businesses rely on predictability and certainty in tax laws to plan their affairs.”
The group further emphasized that “If income can be redefined as easily as the Ninth Circuit says, then businesses and their shareholders could be subject to taxes on anything that the government later deems “income”—even increases in value that could disappear as valuations or markets fluctuate. Such a realization free approach risks profound uncertainty in an area of the law that demands certainty.”
In the upcoming fall term, the Court is set to consider several cases that present favorable opportunities to curtail the powers of the federal administrative state.
The court has granted its consent to adjudicate cases that challenge the constitutionality of an agency funding scheme that is exempt from the congressional appropriations process and regular congressional oversight. Additionally, it will examine the practice of federal courts granting judicial deference to agency interpretations of the laws they are responsible for enforcing.
The court has also granted permission to consider a case that has the potential to reinstate the practice of jury trials in a certain category of civil matters that are presently adjudicated exclusively by judges employed by administrative bodies. According to a report by the Daily Signal, SEC v. Jarkesy is anticipated to be a significant case in the forthcoming term due to its potential to restore the entitlement to a jury trial in administrative civil matters.
Sources: SCOTUS Blog Washington Examiner
The post Supreme Court Development Could Rock 2024 Election appeared first on The Republic Brief.
About Author
