Moore v. United States is relisted. The Supreme Court hasn't yet granted the >appeal.
equipment to farmers in poor regions of India. The company was profitable
but didn't pay dividends as dividends were always reinvested.
The Moores paid the tax but challenged it as an unapportioned direct tax. >They lost at the Ninth Circuit because the Supreme Court has ruled that >unrealized income may be taxed.
It appears that Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> said:
Moore v. United States is relisted. The Supreme Court hasn't yet granted the >>appeal.
Don't get your hopes up. There are 191 petitions left and they will
accept maybe five of them. I suspect the relist is because two or
three of the usual suspects like it, probably the same ones who like
the absurd Moore vs Harper election law case, hoping they can round
up one more vote.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
equipment to farmers in poor regions of India. The company was
profitable but didn't pay dividends as dividends were always
reinvested.
The Moores paid the tax but challenged it as an unapportioned direct
tax. They lost at the Ninth Circuit because the Supreme Court has
ruled that unrealized income may be taxed.
Their argument seems to be that they don't owe tax because the income
was not paid out, and assert that courts have always said that you
only owe tax on income you have received.
That's just false. Zero coupon bonds are sold at a discount and
redeemed at face value. Each year the value of the bond is a little
more as it gets closer to the maturity date, with the increase called
imputed interest. Even though you don't get that imputed interest, you
have to pay taxes on it each year. (If somone's about to ask what
about US Savings Bonds, they have a special exception.)
I doubt SCOTUS has an appetite to screw up the entire bond market for
the benefit of some guy with a small investment in an Indian firm.
Keep in mind that this argument is just about timing. You owe tax
either way, the question only being when you pay it.
According to Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
equipment to farmers in poor regions of India. The company was profitable >>but didn't pay dividends as dividends were always reinvested.
The Moores paid the tax but challenged it as an unapportioned direct tax. >>They lost at the Ninth Circuit because the Supreme Court has ruled that >>unrealized income may be taxed.
Their argument seems to be that they don't owe tax because the income
was not paid out, and assert that courts have always said that you
only owe tax on income you have received.
That's just false. Zero coupon bonds are sold at a discount and
redeemed at face value. Each year the value of the bond is a little
more as it gets closer to the maturity date, with the increase called
imputed interest. Even though you don't get that imputed interest, you
have to pay taxes on it each year.
(If somone's about to ask what about US Savings Bonds, they have
a special exception.)
I doubt SCOTUS has an appetite to screw up the entire bond market for
the benefit of some guy with a small investment in an Indian firm.
Keep in mind that this argument is just about timing. You owe tax
either way, the question only being when you pay it.
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
equipment to farmers in poor regions of India. The company was
profitable but didn't pay dividends as dividends were always
reinvested.
The Moores paid the tax but challenged it as an unapportioned direct
tax. They lost at the Ninth Circuit because the Supreme Court has
ruled that unrealized income may be taxed.
Their argument seems to be that they don't owe tax because the income
was not paid out, and assert that courts have always said that you
only owe tax on income you have received.
The dividend must be issued, at least put on the books, in order to be re-invested. When would that occur, at year end or throughout the
year? Sound like an informal process.
That's just false. Zero coupon bonds are sold at a discount and
redeemed at face value. Each year the value of the bond is a little
more as it gets closer to the maturity date, with the increase called >>imputed interest. Even though you don't get that imputed interest, you
have to pay taxes on it each year.
Isn't this original issue discount? I get 1099s for this each year. No
cash.
(If somone's about to ask what about US Savings Bonds, they have
a special exception.)
I doubt SCOTUS has an appetite to screw up the entire bond market for
the benefit of some guy with a small investment in an Indian firm.
Keep in mind that this argument is just about timing. You owe tax
either way, the question only being when you pay it.
That's just false. Zero coupon bonds are sold at a discount and
redeemed at face value. ...
Isn't this original issue discount? I get 1099s for this each year. No
cash.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 45:20:43 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,235 |
| Posted today: | 1 |