Justice Alito, who refused to recuse himself from hearing the case, was virtually alone with Justice Gorsuch in advancing the extreme claims on Tuesday.
> The reason why Alito might have decided he could not recuse himself became apparent fairly early in the day’s arguments: He might be the most extreme right voice on the court on this question. < Can you please use “right wing” instead of “right”, so the term is not confused with “correct”? I get it that the context reveals the meaning yet I still stumbled over it while reading this sentence. “Right wing” is completely clear on meaning. Thank you.
Makes sense! … I honestly won’t use “right wing,” because I don’t like the phrase (I think it both understates things and is reminiscent of an earlier era), but I do generally use more clear phrasing and will try to do so going forward.
I wonder if there’s a correlation between the justices who receive the most “gifts” that are not totally bribes no matter how bribey the gifts appear and the four who voted to hear the case.
What does this mean? Kavanaugh asked a follow-up question to cabin an Alito set of questions and where Barrett followed up to cabin a Gorsuch set of questions.
They were limiting what Alito and Gorsuch had said, respectively. Narrowing it, restraining it. I didn't want to say that they were countering Alito and Gorsuch, but they were definitely coming close with their follow-ups — contrasting and trying to pull back from what Alito and Gorsuch were saying.
Consider what a bigshot SCOTUS litigator gets paid for arguing a case, even a loser. Looks like the Moores will be 6 figures lighter in addition to the taxes, and Sam’s buddy will have some serious realized income.
After Tuesday’s arguments, it’s still not exactly clear why the justices took the case — although it is almost certain that Alito and Gorsuch were among the justices who voted to hear the case.
Maybe someone should check if they recently obtained some “loans” or a vacation junket
Maybe Roberts was looking for something ridiculous where he could slap down Alito? To go full n-dimensional chess for a minute, Thomas might even have appreciated an opportunity to demonstrate the difference between a principled (at least occasionally) nutcase and a mercenary one.
re: reasons to grant cert; the partisan fluff has somewhat obscured the Ninth's decision did advance a position not necessarily congruent with the other circuits. Regardless of if realization is a component of the 16th Amendment, the MRT is levied solely because a U.S. shareholder is the owner of an asset that, as of an arbitrary date, has accumulated foreign earnings.
For example, the 4th Circuit in Simmons v. United States held that there needed to be “receipt of…an economic gain over which he has complete control." 308 F.2d 160, 167–68 (4th Cir. 1962). The First Circuit has similar language. The 10th Circuit talks about in this very obscure case "constructive receipt."
Petitioners are quick to say 'a-ha! That means they held in favor of realization!' For the record, I don't agree with that.
However, even if petitioners are wrong the Ninth maybe ought to have considered there still needs to be some sort of nexus ("receipt" for lack of a better word) beyond a set date.
All fair, except for the opening. I'm not sure "not necessarily congruent" with a 60-year-old decision from another circuit about another law really merits granting cert unless you're looking for it.
> The reason why Alito might have decided he could not recuse himself became apparent fairly early in the day’s arguments: He might be the most extreme right voice on the court on this question. < Can you please use “right wing” instead of “right”, so the term is not confused with “correct”? I get it that the context reveals the meaning yet I still stumbled over it while reading this sentence. “Right wing” is completely clear on meaning. Thank you.
Makes sense! … I honestly won’t use “right wing,” because I don’t like the phrase (I think it both understates things and is reminiscent of an earlier era), but I do generally use more clear phrasing and will try to do so going forward.
I cleaned it up. I think it's already clear at that point where his extremism lies.
Thank you.
I wonder if there’s a correlation between the justices who receive the most “gifts” that are not totally bribes no matter how bribey the gifts appear and the four who voted to hear the case.
Are property taxes not taxes on unrealized gains?
Those are state taxes; this is about the federal government's tax powers.
They took it because the Federalist Society told them to take it in order to block a wealth tax.
What does this mean? Kavanaugh asked a follow-up question to cabin an Alito set of questions and where Barrett followed up to cabin a Gorsuch set of questions.
They were limiting what Alito and Gorsuch had said, respectively. Narrowing it, restraining it. I didn't want to say that they were countering Alito and Gorsuch, but they were definitely coming close with their follow-ups — contrasting and trying to pull back from what Alito and Gorsuch were saying.
Thanks. I even asked the interwebs to explain that phrase to me. Makes sense now.
Consider what a bigshot SCOTUS litigator gets paid for arguing a case, even a loser. Looks like the Moores will be 6 figures lighter in addition to the taxes, and Sam’s buddy will have some serious realized income.
After Tuesday’s arguments, it’s still not exactly clear why the justices took the case — although it is almost certain that Alito and Gorsuch were among the justices who voted to hear the case.
Maybe someone should check if they recently obtained some “loans” or a vacation junket
From a strictly lay woman's point of view, with this particular case, it could be a
test of SCOTUS on "tax laws".
Especially for top money people. Big millionaires and
the 700+ billionaires we now
have in the country. There
are grassroots movements
for this too.
Elizabeth Warren and a few other Senators are pushing
for higher taxes on these big
monied people and where
they earn their money from;
Amazon, Meta.
In my humble opinion, if you
make money from your
company in another country,
you should pay taxes on that,
'cause that's adding to your
overall wealth and profit here.
Is that a very simplified way of looking at "realization", Chris?
Maybe Roberts was looking for something ridiculous where he could slap down Alito? To go full n-dimensional chess for a minute, Thomas might even have appreciated an opportunity to demonstrate the difference between a principled (at least occasionally) nutcase and a mercenary one.
re: reasons to grant cert; the partisan fluff has somewhat obscured the Ninth's decision did advance a position not necessarily congruent with the other circuits. Regardless of if realization is a component of the 16th Amendment, the MRT is levied solely because a U.S. shareholder is the owner of an asset that, as of an arbitrary date, has accumulated foreign earnings.
For example, the 4th Circuit in Simmons v. United States held that there needed to be “receipt of…an economic gain over which he has complete control." 308 F.2d 160, 167–68 (4th Cir. 1962). The First Circuit has similar language. The 10th Circuit talks about in this very obscure case "constructive receipt."
Petitioners are quick to say 'a-ha! That means they held in favor of realization!' For the record, I don't agree with that.
However, even if petitioners are wrong the Ninth maybe ought to have considered there still needs to be some sort of nexus ("receipt" for lack of a better word) beyond a set date.
All fair, except for the opening. I'm not sure "not necessarily congruent" with a 60-year-old decision from another circuit about another law really merits granting cert unless you're looking for it.
The opposite spin zone is that it's sixty years old because everyone has simply gotten it right.
I think the point stands without the 60-year clause, though.