Business
Supreme Court upholds a tax on corporate wealth held overseas
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to put new limits on Congress’ power to tax wealth that is not paid out in annual dividends.
In a setback for anti-tax conservatives, the justices upheld a provision of a 2017 tax law that imposed a one-time levy on the profits of foreign corporations whose shares were owned by Americans.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices said Congress has the power to tax corporate shareholders based on the company’s “undistributed income.”
“This court has long upheld taxes of that kind, and we do the same today,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh for the court.
The case came to the court as a test of whether the conservative majority would put constitutional limits on “wealth taxes.”
Instead, the justices upheld an income tax that is not based on annual dividends.
While the decision upheld a Trump-era tax, progressives and tax experts cheered the ruling.
“Today’s decision will allow Congress to continue to exercise its power to tax income to fund the government and to make sure that all taxpayers — including multinational corporations and wealthy taxpayers — pay their fair share,” said Chye-Ching Huang, executive director of the Tax Law Center at NYU Law.
Alexandra Thornton of the Center for American Progress said the ruling “means that wealthy people attempting to avoid taxes by offshoring their money have to pay their fair share, just like every other American. The court’s decision avoids an outcome that would have thrown the American tax system into disarray and put at risk other forms of taxation that raise billions of dollars in revenue.”
Some noted that the ruling was limited to an unusual tax provision.
“The court makes clear it is not opening the door to a wealth tax, which would still face constitutional problems as a tax on property,” said Joe Bishop-Henchman of the National Taxpayers Union.
Thursday’s decision did not resolve a persistent dispute over whether the Constitution’s approval of income taxes includes taxing shares of corporate stock, or instead is limited to “realized” gains, such as wages, stock sales and stock dividends.
“So the precise and narrow question that the court addresses today is whether 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,” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. “This court’s longstanding precedents, reflected in and reinforced by Congress’s longstanding practice, establish that the answer is yes.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
Thomas wrote that the 16th Amendment says income is “only income realized by the taxpayer. The text and history of the amendment make clear that it requires a distinction between ‘income’ and the ‘source’ from which that income is ‘derived.’ And, the only way to draw such a distinction is with a realization requirement.”
Some conservatives fear that a future Congress led by progressive Democrats would impose taxes on accumulated wealth.
They urged the court to hear the case of Moore vs. United States and to rule that Congress may not impose a tax on “property or wealth.”
At issue in the case was the meaning of the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913. It says Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”
A few years later, the Supreme Court said corporate shares held by taxpayers could not be taxed as income unless they were “realized or received” as income. That decision was generally understood to mean that the government may impose taxes on wages or stock dividends, but not necessarily on property or corporate wealth that grows in value. These are referred to as “unrealized gains.”
But many constitutional scholars and tax experts had questioned that interpretation of the 16th Amendment. And in recent decades, Congress has imposed taxes on individuals who are earning income in partnerships and have ownership shares in some corporations, even if dividends are not paid out each year.
The case of Charles and Kathleen Moore began when they received a $14,729 tax bill for their ownership shares of a company based in India.
The Moores, who are retired and live in Washington state, said they received no income or dividends from their investment in the company, which supplies equipment to small farmers. They sued, alleging the tax was unconstitutional under the 16th Amendment.
But a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with them and upheld part of the 2017 tax bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by President Trump. It imposed a one-time tax on Americans who owned shares in foreign corporations that gained in value. The tax measure included large tax breaks for the wealthy, but to offset those losses in tax revenue, lawmakers sought to recoup some profits that Americans held abroad.
With the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, the Moores petitioned the court with the help of Washington attorney David B. Rivkin and urged the justices to strike down the tax on overseas profits.
Some had called for Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to recuse himself from the matter.
Rivkin who helped write the appeal petition, interviewed Alito for two articles that appeared in the Wall Street Journal last year.
“There was no valid reason for my recusal in this case,” Alito wrote in response in September. “When Mr. Rivkin participated in the interviews and co-authored the articles, he did so as a journalist, not an advocate. The case in which he is involved was never mentioned; nor did we discuss any issue in that case either directly or indirectly.”
Alito concurred in the outcome Thursday.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
A former female staffer who worked for Beast Industries, the media venture behind the popular YouTube channel MrBeast, is suing the company, alleging she was sexually harassed and fired shortly after she returned from maternity leave.
The employee, Lorrayne Mavromatis, a Brazilian-born social media professional, alleges in a lawsuit she was subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s management and demoted after she complained about her treatment. She said she was urged to join a conference call while in labor and expected to work during her maternity leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the federal complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
“This clout-chasing complaint is built on deliberate misrepresentations and categorically false statements, and we have the receipts to prove it. There is extensive evidence — including Slack and WhatsApp messages, company documents, and witness testimony — that unequivocally refutes her claims. We will not submit to opportunistic lawyers looking to manufacture a payday from us,” Gaude Paez, a Beast Industries spokesperson, said in a statement.
Jimmy Donaldson, 27, began MrBeast as a teen gaming channel that soon exploded into a media company worth an estimated $5 billion, with 500 employees and 450 million subscribers who watch its games, stunts and giveaways.
Mavromatis, who was hired in 2022 as its head of Instagram, described a pervasive climate of discrimination and harassment, according to the lawsuit.
In her complaint, she alleges the company’s former CEO James Warren made her meet him at his home for one-on-one meetings while he commented on her looks and dismissed her complaints about a male client’s unwanted advances, telling her “she should be honored that the client was hitting on her.”
When Mavromatis asked Warren why MrBeast, Donaldson, would not work with her, she was told that “she is a beautiful woman and her appearance had a certain sexual effect on Jimmy,” and, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.”
Paez refuted the claim.
“That’s ridiculous. This is an allegation fabricated for the sole purpose of sparking headlines,” Paez said.
Mavromatis said she endured a slate of other indignities such as being told by Donaldson that she “would only participate in her video shoot if she brought him a beer.”
“In this male-centric workplace, Plaintiff, one of the few women in a high-level role, was excluded from otherwise all-male meetings, demeaned in front of colleagues, harassed, and suffered from males be given preferential treatment in employment decisions,” states the complaint.
When Mavromatis raised a question during a staff meeting with her team, she said a male colleague told her to “shut up” or “stop talking.”
At MrBeast headquarters in Greenville, N.C., she said male executives mocked female contestants participating in BeastGames, “who complained they did not have access to feminine hygiene products and clean underwear while participating in the show.”
In November 2023, Mavromatis formally complained about “the sexually inappropriate encounters and harassment, and demeaning and hostile work environment she and other female employees had been living and experiencing working at MrBeast,” to the company’s then head of human resources, Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother, according to the suit.
In her complaint, Mavromatis said Beast Industries did not have a method or process for employees to report such issues either anonymously or to a third party, rather employees were expected to follow the company’s handbook, “How to Succeed In MrBeast Production.”
In it, employees were instructed that, “It’s okay for the boys to be childish,” “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them” and “No does not mean no,” according to the complaint.
Mavromatis alleges that she was demoted and then fired.
Paez said that Mavromatis’s role was eliminated as part of a reorganization of an underperforming group within Beast Industries and that she was made aware of this.
Lululemon, the yoga pants and athletic clothing company, has hired a former executive from a rival, Nike, as its new chief executive.
Heidi O’Neill, who spent more than 25 years at Nike, will take the reins and join Lululemon’s board of directors on Sept. 8, the company announced on Wednesday.
The leadership change is happening during a tumultuous time for Lululemon, which had grown to $11 billion in revenue by persuading shoppers to ditch their jeans and slacks for stretchy leggings. But lately, sales have declined in North America amid intense competition and shifting fashion trends, with consumers favoring looser styles rather than the form-fitting silhouettes for which Lululemon is best known.
“As I step into the C.E.O. role in September, my job will be to build on that foundation — to accelerate product breakthroughs, deepen the brand’s cultural relevance, and unlock growth in markets around the world,” Ms. O’Neill, 61, said in a statement.
Lululemon, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, has also been entangled in a corporate power struggle over the company’s future. Its billionaire founder, Chip Wilson, has feuded with the board, nominated independent directors and criticized executives.
Lululemon’s previous chief executive, Calvin McDonald, stepped down at the end of January as pressure mounted from Mr. Wilson and some investors. One activist investor, Elliott Investment Management, had pushed its own chief executive candidate, who was not selected.
The interim co-chiefs, Meghan Frank and André Maestrini, will lead the company until Ms. O’Neill’s arrival, when they are expected to return to other senior roles. The pair had outlined a plan to revive sales at Lululemon, promising to invest in stores, save more money and speed up product development.
“We start the year with a real plan, with real strategies,” Mr. Maestrini said in an interview this year. “We make sure decisions are made fast.”
Lululemon said last month that it would add Chip Bergh, the former chief executive of Levi Strauss, to its board to replace David Mussafer, the chairman of the private equity firm Advent International, whom Mr. Wilson had sought to remove.
Ms. O’Neill climbed the organizational chart at Nike for decades, working across divisions including consumer sports, product innovation and brand marketing, and was most recently its president of consumer, product and brand. She left Nike last year amid a shake-up of senior management that led to the elimination of her role.
Analysts said Ms. O’Neill would be expected to find ways to energize Lululemon’s business and reset the company’s culture in order to improve performance.
“O’Neill is her own person who will come with an agenda of change,” said Neil Saunders, the managing director of GlobalData, a data analytics and consulting company. “The task ahead is a significant one, but it can be undertaken from a position of relative stability.”
-
Rhode Island3 minutes agoRhode Island’s TF Green airport to add flights to Cabo Verde in May – The Boston Globe
-
South Dakota15 minutes agoSDDOT reminds public not to put election signs on state highway rights-of-way
-
Tennessee21 minutes agoWhat TV channel is Alabama baseball vs Tennessee today? Streaming, start times
-
Texas27 minutes agoFirst round of Texas Education Freedom Accounts awarded to priority students
-
Utah33 minutes agoSuazo Business Center, traditionally focused on Latinos, gets $600K grant to expand services
-
Vermont39 minutes agoLetter to the Editor: A different path for Vermont’s environmental future
-
Virginia45 minutes agoWhy the Virginia redistricting referendum wasn’t a slam dunk for Democrats
-
Washington51 minutes agoSpringtime in Washington means it’s time for another round of federal privacy legislation | Brookings