Moore v. United States (2024)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
The Moores challenged the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which attributed certain accumulated, undistributed earnings of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) to its U.S. shareholders and taxed them once. The Supreme Court upheld the MRT, holding that Congress may tax a shareholder on a pass-through basis for a business entity’s realized income—even if the shareholder did not personally receive a distribution—without violating the Apportionment Clause or exceeding the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court did not decide whether Congress may tax purely unrealized gains in other contexts.

3) Why It Mattered
It preserves a core feature of the modern tax system (pass-through attribution) and calms uncertainty around international tax reforms, while pointedly leaving open broader questions about taxes on unrealized gains.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Confirmation that Congress can attribute an entity’s realized business income to owners and tax it under the Sixteenth Amendment.
• Took Away: A sweeping constitutional challenge that could have upended existing pass-through regimes (Subpart F, partnerships, S-corps, etc.).

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The Court took a narrow, text- and history-grounded approach—upholding the MRT but refusing to bless a general tax on unrealized gains. That restraint fits the Court’s role.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
If a company you own (including certain foreign companies) earns profits, Congress can tax you on your share even if the company doesn’t cut you a check. But the Court didn’t say the government can tax changes in your asset values before any sale.

• Tax
• Sixteenth Amendment
• Unrealized Gains
• International Tax