The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a tax on foreign income over a challenge backed by business and anti-regulatory interests, declining their invitation to weigh in on a broader, never-enacted tax on wealth.
The justices, by a 7-2 vote, left in place a provision of a 2017 tax law that is expected to generate $340 billion, mainly from the foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations that parked money abroad to shield it from U.S. taxes.
The law, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump, includes a provision that applies to companies that are owned by Americans but do their business in foreign countries. It imposes a one-time tax on investors’ shares of profits that have not been passed along to them, to offset other tax benefits.
But the larger significance of the ruling is what it didn’t do. The case attracted outsize attention because some groups allied with the Washington couple who brought the case argued that the challenged provision is similar to a wealth tax, which would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans but to their assets, like stock holdings. Such assets now get taxed only when they are sold.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/20/supreme-court-decision-trump-tax-on-foreign-earnings/73793041007/
So they weren’t really paying for the case most likely. I’ve also seen some articles mention that the facts of the case as presented to the court may not have been entirely accurate, possible the Moores or their lawyers lied or misrepresented some things in the case. I haven’t been able to find more details on what exactly they’re referencing though.