I understand this is probably not the most important point of the post here, but as someone who works in financial services, this doesn't scream property tax to me. It seems more similar to the law firm partner example: each partner owes tax on her pro-rata share of the legal entity's profits (regardless of distribution) by virtue of a property ownership interest in the equity of the legal entity.
Is there a colorable way to get to an “as applied”result? The Moore’s lose because they held the stock for 30 years, so as to them it is a tax on their income, but some other taxpayer who has held for a shorter time (line undefined) might have a successful challenge?
A good post - entertaining and informative - as usual. Like Mike above, I think the principled and also practical way to handle this is to hold that the MRT is unconstitutional as applied beyond the period where the shareholder held the stock, which also has the effect of making it more like a tax on imputed income, so the Moores lose.
Note: To my recollection, federal income tax was my least favorite law school class and also my lowest grade.
Is there any chance this actually happens? The only plausible scenario in my mind is that the court is hopelessly divided and releases a per curiam opinion striking down the tax with concurrences and dissents to follow.
I understand this is probably not the most important point of the post here, but as someone who works in financial services, this doesn't scream property tax to me. It seems more similar to the law firm partner example: each partner owes tax on her pro-rata share of the legal entity's profits (regardless of distribution) by virtue of a property ownership interest in the equity of the legal entity.
Hi Adam, thanks for the post. Very informative.
Is there a colorable way to get to an “as applied”result? The Moore’s lose because they held the stock for 30 years, so as to them it is a tax on their income, but some other taxpayer who has held for a shorter time (line undefined) might have a successful challenge?
A good post - entertaining and informative - as usual. Like Mike above, I think the principled and also practical way to handle this is to hold that the MRT is unconstitutional as applied beyond the period where the shareholder held the stock, which also has the effect of making it more like a tax on imputed income, so the Moores lose.
Note: To my recollection, federal income tax was my least favorite law school class and also my lowest grade.
thanks for the discussion. It actually helped cleared a bit of mud from the arguments around this case.
Is there any chance this actually happens? The only plausible scenario in my mind is that the court is hopelessly divided and releases a per curiam opinion striking down the tax with concurrences and dissents to follow.
Fascinating. Thank you for the detailed explanation.