Doug McHoney (PwC's International Tax Services Global Leader) and Wade Sutton (former Deputy International Tax Counsel for the US Treasury and newly appointed ITS leader of PwC’s Washington National Tax Practice) are back in Washington, D.C. to discuss the recent Supreme Court grant of certiorari for the Moore v. US case. Doug and Wade go back to their law school days to break down the Moore case, starting with the facts, procedural history, and the potential implications if Section 965 is ruled unconstitutional, including direct taxation, indirect taxation, subpart F, Section 245A, GILTI, and, as always, Pillar Two.

Timestamps:

4:00 What were the facts of the Moore case?
6:15 What was the procedural history of this case? What were the taxpayers' arguments?
7:00 What is some of the backstory and technical context of the 16th amendment, specifically the Eisner case?
11:00 What did the US District Court say with respect to the two arguments on realization and retroactivity?
12:30 The Moore’s appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. What happened there?
15:45 What are some of the potential collateral implications if the US Supreme Court rules that this case violates Eisner v. Macomber and the realization requirement?
18:50 How could the US Supreme Court limit the consequences of their ruling?
20:30 How would interest parties like the IRS and Congress weigh in on this case?
22:25 What could Pillar Two be impacted?
24:25 If Section 965 is held to be unconstitutional, what are the downstream consequences on future distributions for those companies that were subject to Section 965?