Moore v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Moore v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Moore v. United States.
The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), which taxes American shareholders on the undistributed income of American-controlled foreign corporations. The Moores challenged the MRT, arguing it was an unapportioned direct tax. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision, upholding the MRT as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Moore v. United States.
The Court held that the MRT does not exceed Congress's constitutional authority.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Moore v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Spending Power is relevant to Moore v. United States
The case primarily concerns Congress's power to impose taxes, which is part of its spending power.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Article I of the Constitution affords Congress broad power to lay and collect taxes.
-
Why Necessary and Proper Clause is relevant to Moore v. United States
The case involves Congress's authority to attribute income to shareholders, which is an exercise of its implied powers.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Congress may attribute an entity's realized and undistributed income to the entity's shareholders or partners and then tax the shareholders or partners on their portions of that income.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Moore v. United States
The Court reviews the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax under the Constitution.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Moores paid the tax and then sued for a refund, claiming, among other things, that the MRT violated the Direct Tax Clause of the Constitution.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Moore v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
The MRT does tax realized income—namely, the income realized by KisanKraft, which the MRT attributes to the shareholders.
Congress may attribute an entity's realized and undistributed income to the entity's shareholders or partners and then tax the shareholders or partners on their portions of that income.
The Court's holding is narrow and limited to entities treated as pass-throughs.
