On July 20, 2024, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Code Sec. 965 mandatory repatriation tax was constitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The majority opinion crafted a very narrow ruling preserving the status quo, but avoiding the principal issue presented to the court.
The Moores had invested in a controlled foreign corporation. They never received distributions from the CFC or paid any tax with respect to the CFC. Under the Subchapter F rules prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, shareholders were not taxed on the operating income of a CFC until distribution; however, 10%-or-more shareholders were currently taxed on movable income of the CFC, such as dividends, interest, rents and royalties.
The TCJA created a one-time Mandatory Repatriation Tax under Code Sec. 965 on a 10%-or-more shareholder’s share of the CFC’s post-1986 accumulated earnings, which consisted of the untaxed, undistributed operating income of the CFC.
Financed by groups seeking a ruling that taxation of unrealized sums was unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment without apportionment among the states, since it was a tax on property and not a tax on “income,” the Moores challenged the constitutionality of Code Sec. 965 in court. They also argued that the MRT constituted a retroactive tax in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The federal district court held that the MRT was taxation of income within the terms of the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, citing similar taxes that had been held constitutional over the years. The Ninth Circuit also held that the retroactivity of the tax did not violate the Due Process Clause because it served a legitimate purpose in accelerating the repatriation.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in June of 2023 on the Sixteenth Amendment issue. The issue as framed by Moore was, “Whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.” The government framed the issue as, “Whether the Mandatory Repatriation Tax is a tax … on incomes, from whatever source derived.”
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court held that the MRT was a tax on income and not a tax on property. The court framed the issue as whether Congress can attribute an entity’s realized and undistributed income to the entity’s shareholders or partners and then tax the shareholders or partners on their portion of the income.
The majority opinion looked to a long line of precedents that Congress can choose to tax either a business entity or its partners or shareholders, such as the taxation of partnerships and S corporations, and the taxation of Subpart F income. The majority opinion limited its decision to situations involving the taxation of shareholders of an entity on the undistributed income realized by the entity that has been attributed to the shareholders when the entity itself has not been taxed on the income.
By limiting its decision to this narrow issue, the court avoided addressing whether the Sixteenth Amendment includes a realization requirement.
Scope of the Moore decision
The court’s decision supports many longstanding taxes in the Internal Revenue Code, including the taxation of partnerships, S corporations, Subpart F income, global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI), real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs), passive foreign investment companies income, original initial discount rules for below-market and short-term loans, and mark-to-market rules for securities dealers, regulated futures contracts, imputed rental income, insurance companies, and the Code Sec. 877A exit tax.
The majority opinion does not address issues such as the constitutionality of proposed wealth taxes and the taxation of the appreciated but unrealized value of the assets of individual taxpayers. The opinion also does not address whether a U.S. entity’s realized income that is already subject to U.S. corporate income tax could be attributed to shareholders.
Concurring and dissenting opinions
The majority Supreme Court opinion was authored by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. A concurring opinion by Justice Jackson argued that the realization requirement was not constitutionally required under the Sixteenth Amendment. A concurring opinion authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Justice Alito argued that realization is constitutionally required under the Sixteenth Amendment; however, realization by an entity is sufficient to meet the requirement.
A dissenting opinion authored by Justice Thomas and joined by Justice Gorsuch also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment requires the realization of income. It criticized the majority for focusing on attribution and distinguished the MRT from other forms of pass-through taxation in that the other forms of Subpart F taxation related to the earnings of a U.S. shareholder on the earnings of a foreign corporation during the same year as the shareholder’s control.
Combining the concurring opinion of Justices Barrett and Alito and the dissenting opinion of Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, there were a total of four justices arguing that the Sixteenth Amendment includes a realization requirement. Only Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion argues directly that the Sixteenth Amendment does not include a realization requirement.
Wealth tax
A wealth tax has been proposed in the U.S. by some members of Congress and has been implemented in some European countries. Part of the impetus for financing the Moore case was to try to forestall a wealth tax in the U.S. by getting a ruling that a wealth tax would be a violation of the Sixteenth Amendment as a tax on unrealized income. The Supreme Court did not go that far in Moore; however, it appears that at least four of the current justices are prepared to do so.
President Biden has proposed an end to stepped-up basis at death for gains over $5 million per person and $10 million per married couple, with protections for gifts to charity and family for farms and businesses where the heirs will continue to run the business. Biden has also proposed a 25% income tax on those with wealth of more than $100 million.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a true wealth tax of a 2% annual surtax on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion and a 6% annual surtax on the net worth of households and trusts above $1 billion.
Having failed to get the current Supreme Court to rule on the realization requirement in Moore, it may be difficult to find an appropriate case to bring the issue again to the Supreme Court until something similar to a wealth tax is enacted.
Should the realization issue come before the current Supreme Court again in the context of a wealth tax, it may be that Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Kavanaugh would join the four justices already indicating support for a realization requirement in the Sixteenth Amendment.
Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision preserves the status quo in protecting various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, including the MRT specifically at issue in the case. It avoided, however, and left for another day, the issue presented by the Moores — whether the Sixteenth Amendment includes a realization requirement.
In a case involving phony documents and unpaid taxes, a prominent Washington, D.C.-based accountant pleaded guilty last week for making false statements on a mortgage application after failing to file IRS returns.
A certified public accountant with expertise on tax compliance and due diligence matters, Timothy Trifilo has held partner or managing director positions at several firms for over four decades. He also taught courses in taxation and real estate as an adjunct professor, the original Department of Justice indictment said. Trifilo was hired as a managing director with consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal earlier this year.
The fraud allegations resulted from a 2023 purchase, when Trifilo applied for a $1.4 million mortgage on a Washington property. When the unidentified issuing bank advised that they could not locate recent tax returns nor approve his application without them, Trifilo submitted copies of 2021 and 2022 IRS filings to the lender, who then originated the loan.
Investigators later discovered that, in reality, Trifilo had neither filed returns nor paid taxes for any year beginning in 2012 despite income over the subsequent decade totaling more than $7.7 million. His annual earnings ranged between $636,051 and $948,252 during that time, amounts that required him to file individual tax returns each year.
On documentation delivered to the lender in support of the mortgage application, a former colleague of Trifilo was identified as responsible for preparing, reviewing and signing the falsified returns purportedly submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.
“This individual did not prepare the returns, has never prepared tax returns for Trifilo and did not authorize Trifilo to use his name on the returns and other documents that Trifilo submitted,” a DOJ press release said.
A grand jury originally indicted Trifilo in September on seven counts, including bank fraud and failure to file tax returns, as well as aggravated identity theft. His actions led to a tax loss for the IRS of $2.1 million.
He faces a maximum sentence of three decades in prison for defrauding the lender, as well as one year for failure to file tax returns. Sentencing is scheduled for May 19.
In addition to potential prison time, Trifilo may be required to forfeit the original loan amount and property acquired through bank fraud, the original indictment stated. He also faces a period of supervised release, monetary penalties and restitution.
Attorneys from the DOJ’s tax division prosecuted the case, with evidence based on findings from the IRS criminal investigation unit.
Submission of phony forms and documents have played a role in multiple fraud cases this year, pointing to a pain point in the mortgage process that could end up costing lenders. Problems in income and employment data specifically had a defect rate of 37.01% to lead all underwriting categories between March and June this year, according to Aces Quality Management. The number surged from 23.42% in the first quarter.
The American Institute of CPAs is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s recently adopted standard on firm and engagement metrics, arguing they would drive smaller firms out of the auditing business and affect companies large and small.
The PCAOB voted to adopt the standard last month, along with a related standard on firm reporting, but the new rules still need to be approved by the SEC before they become official and take effect. Under the new rules, PCAOB-registered public accounting firms that audit one or more issuers that qualify as an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer would be required to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practices. The PCAOB made some changes from the originally proposed rules to accommodate some of the objections from the audit industry and public companies, but they remain far reaching in scope. The AICPA argues that the rules would affect more than just accelerated filers and large accelerated filers and could harm smaller companies and their auditors as well. Under SEC rules, accelerated filers are companies that have a public float of between $75 million and $700 million, annual revenues of $100 million or more, and have filed periodic reports and an annual report within the past year. Larger accelerated filers have a public float of $700 million or more. The AICPA expressed caution soon after the PCAOB voted to approve the new standards, but said it was still studying it. Now it is coming out firmly against the new rules and urging the SEC to reject them.
“Alternative approaches that better balance transparency, cost, and the needs of audit committees, while continuing to support the quality of audit services and choice of audit providers available to perform public company audits and serve the public interest should be pursued, rather than introducing potentially detrimental unproven regulations,” the AICPA said in a comment letter to the SEC.
The AICPA argues the new rules would hurt U.S. capital markets as well as the investing public, in addition to auditing firms of all sizes.
“We believe these rules will have unintended negative consequences, including driving small and medium-sized firms out of the public company auditing practice,” said AICPA comment letter. “This would result in fewer firms performing audits which are critically important for smaller and medium size companies seeking to access the U.S. capital markets. Consequently, companies will face greater challenges and higher costs in meeting necessary audit requirements to access to the U.S. capital markets. The PCAOB acknowledges that mid-sized and smaller accounting firms serving small to mid-sized public companies will incur substantial, if not prohibitive, costs in complying with the proposed amendments. The final rules reaffirm the PCAOB’s belief that the rules will disproportionately affect smaller firms.”
The AICPA contends it’s overly simplistic to believe the impact of the rules would mostly fall within the market for large accelerated filers.“Smaller audit firms often serve clients of varying sizes, and their departure from the broader public company audit market could result in a substantial loss of audit firm options, particularly for smaller, less complex accelerated filers,” said the AICPA. “The loss of competition and the reduction in available audit firms could lead to higher costs and less favorable engagement terms for these smaller issuers. A landscape in which smaller issuers have fewer options contradicts the PCAOB’s goal of promoting fair competition.”
The AICPA disputes the claim by proponents of the new rules that competition may increase in the non-accelerated filer audit market as firms exit the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer markets. “This fails to account for the fact that non-accelerated filers often rely on firms with specific expertise and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “Further, the firms exiting the accelerated filer space may not be able to effectively redeploy their capacity to the non-accelerated filer market. In fact, their exit could lead to a loss of specialized services and a further concentration of resources in the larger end of audit firms, making it harder for non-accelerated filers to secure high-quality, affordable audits.”
The AICPA disagrees with predictions that profitable firms in the larger audit markets could expand their market share against the Big Four. “The resources required to absorb and integrate such capacity are substantial, and many firms may not have the operational flexibility to do so without significant strain on their existing clients and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “This further risks driving up audit costs for smaller and mid-sized issuers, which are often less agile and unable to absorb such change without significant disruption.”
The Institute is also concerned about the use of performance metrics within the PCAOB’s inspection and enforcement program, and how they might drive up the risk of enforcement for minor, unintentional reporting errors. It said the PCAOB rejected calls for a threshold based on the severity of reporting errors. The PCAOB declined a request for comment.
Aiwyn, a provider of technology solutions for accountants and CPA firms, has closed a $113 million funding round.
The money will help the company continue its evolution from its original focus on payments and collections for accounting firms into a more comprehensive tool for practice management.
Among other things, that will include building a universal client experience portal, where accountants can access all of their engagements in one place.
The funding will also be used to accelerate product development on both the company’s practice management platform, and on a tax solution that it is working on.
“Aiwyn is committed to empowering CPA firms to elevate their operations and client relationships,” said chairman and CEO Justin Adams, in a statement. “With this investment, we are poised to redefine how firms manage their operations from the CRM to the general ledger, while setting a new benchmark for client experiences. For too long, firms have had to decide between a legacy vendor or modern point solutions. We are proud that Aiwyn is a trusted platform for CPA firms.”
The round was led by global investment firm KKR and Bessemer Venture Partners. KKR is funding this investment primarily from its Next Generation Technology III Fund.
“The accounting industry represents a large market that has long been served by legacy players. Aiwyn is solving a clear functionality gap in the market with a solution that is easily adopted and rapidly delivers tangible enhancements to the customer experience, most noticeably through significant reductions in days sales outstanding,” said Jackson Hart, a principal on KKR’s technology growth team, in a statement.
“Aiwyn’s product suite is already quite impressive, but the company is really just getting started on its quest to deliver compelling technology to the accounting industry,” added Bessemer partner Jeremy Levine, in a statement.
Cooley LLP served as legal advisor to Aiwyn; Latham & Watkins LLP served as legal advisor to KKR; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP served as legal advisor to Bessemer.