A | WASHINGTON -- Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.The couple from Redmond, Washington, claim they had to pay the money because of their investment in an Indian company from which, as Charles Moore, 62, said in a sworn statement, they “have never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment.”But significant parts of the story they have told to reach this point seem at odds with public records.The Moores are the public face of a high court case backed by business and conservative political interests that could call into question other parts of the U.S. tax code and rule out a much-discussed but never-enacted tax on wealth. The case is set for arguments on Dec. 5. The Moores are the latest example of plaintiffs whose lawsuits seem to simply be exercising their legal rights, but whose cases are backed by others with enormous amounts of money or a consequential social issue at stake. The Moores sought help from the anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute.Underscoring the case's importance at a recent Heritage Foundation event, lawyer Paul Clement said, "The constitutionality of a wealth tax may well be decided in the context of this case.”Details of the Moores' involvement with the company, initially called KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Limited, were first reported by Tax Notes, which caters to tax professionals. The public documents are filings with the Indian government.At issue in the case is a provision of the 2017 tax bill enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump. The law applies to companies that are owned by Americans, but do their business in foreign countries. It imposes a one-time tax on investors' shares of profits that have not been passed along to them, in order to offset other tax benefits. The measure is expected to generate $340 billion in tax revenues.The Moores, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative think tanks, contend that the provision violates the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to impose an income tax on Americans.The $15,000 tax bill was for the Moores' share of KisanKraft's profits."If you haven’t received any income, how can you be required to pay income taxes?” Charles Moore asks in a video posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.But far from being a passive investor with no influence over the company, Moore, who worked at Microsoft during his career in software development, served on KisanKraft's board of directors for five years.“The story the Moores told about Charles' involvement with KisanKraft is directly at odds with the fiduciary responsibilities of an individual holding a board seat for an Indian company,” Mindy Herzfeld, a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, wrote in Tax Notes.And there are other indications of Moore's more extensive involvement with KisanKraft than his testimony indicated. The company paid for his travel to India four times and he made at least two investments beyond the $40,000 stake he put up in 2006.Moore also was prepared to invest an another roughly $250,000. That money was ultimately returned by KisanKraft, along with 12% interest.One other inconsistency is that while the Moores say they jointly invested the money, only Charles Moore's name appears in company documents.The couple and their lawyers did not disclose any of that information in legal filings in three different federal courts, including the Supreme Court.“The original declaration on which the case is built is full of lies,” said Reuven Avi-Yonah, an international tax expert at the University of Michigan law school.In a brief conversation with The Associated Press, Kathleen Moore said she and her husband would not discuss the case and referred questions to their lawyers. Andrew Grossman, the Moore's lead attorney, did not respond to messages seeking comment.The omissions, along with the Moores' failure to take advantage of other legal options that would have deferred, if not eliminated, their tax liability make Avi-Yonah and other experts in international tax law suspect the case was manufactured to get at a larger issue, the tax on billionaires that has been proposed by some prominent Democrats but never enacted.A wealth tax would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans, but their assets, like stock holdings, that now only get taxed when they are sold. “There really was no reason for the court to take it on, other than to send a signal to warn off the Congress from passing a billionaire tax," said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.Other provisions of the tax code could be upended by the court's decision, including measures relating to partnerships, limited liability companies and other business formations, Rosenthal said.Changes to those provisions also could affect some justices' finances. Chief Justice John Roberts holds a one-eighth interest worth up to $15,000 in an Irish partnership that owns a cottage in county Limerick, Ireland, and Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni, owns a limited liability company that generated between $50,000 and $100,000 in income last year from Nebraska real estate, according to the justices' financial disclosure forms. Two other recent Supreme Court cases advanced by conservative interests also raised questions about whether facts had been manipulated to get the disputes in front of the court. One of those involved a wedding website designer in Colorado who did not want to work with same-sex couples and a public high school football coach in Washington who wanted to pray on the field.Rosenthal said that “the ugly facts matter” and that the justices could return the Moores' case to a lower court without ruling on it.Charles Moore said in his sworn statement that he agreed to invest in the company that was being formed by his friend and former colleague at Microsoft, Ravindra “Ravi” Kumar Agrawal, because he liked the business plan and trusted his friend.“Moreover, I thought KisanKraft was formed for a noble purpose and had the potential to improve the lives of small and marginal farmers in India,” Moore said. The case had already kicked up ethical questions. Senate Democrats had asked Justice Samuel Alito to step aside from the case because of his interactions with David Rivkin, another lawyer who also is representing the Moores. The Democrats said Alito had cast doubt on his ability to judge the case fairly because he sat for four hours of Wall Street Journal opinion page interviews with an editor at the newspaper and Rivkin.Alito rejected the demands in a four-page statement issued by the court in which he said there “is no valid reason” for his recusal. ___Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.___This story has been corrected to reflect that Mindy Herzfeld is a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, not director of the master's program in international tax.。 今年三季度的三个月，国内车市实在不算景气，7、8月勉强实现了同比微涨，国庆前的“金九”，也仅仅上涨了4.08%，整个第三季度的表现，都远不及上半年8.08%的同比增幅。 不过金九毕竟是金九，乘用车市场当月整体上险量，依然达到225.8万辆的本年最高，不少车企和车型，也在这个月创下了自己的销量记录。 9月份各家车企孰喜孰忧，我们一探究竟。 僵持局面彻底打破，自主、新能源开启二阶段攻势 在今年7月份之前，国内新能源与燃油车进行了持续一年的拉锯战，新能源渗透率在50%的分界线上来回波动，而在7、8、9三个月之后，这种相持局面明显已经被打破，新能源对燃油车、自主对海外品牌这两条战线，都进入了新的阶段。 首先是新能源车，9月份全国总上险量达到128.9万辆，同比增长了16.49%，增速远超总体市场的4.08%。
B | 而9月份燃油车的上险量为96.9万辆，同比下滑了8.83%。
C | 此消彼长下，9月份新能源渗透率已经达到57.07%，较8月份的55.16%增加了将近两个百分点，这是什么概念呢？去年同期新能源渗透率为50.99%，今年1～9月累计销量的渗透率，只有51.27%。 不过，不同动力的新能源车，形势并不一致。目前拉升新能源渗透率的核心动力，就是纯电动车，9月份上险量达到83.8万辆，已经非常接近燃油车的规模，同比大涨了32.3%，而插混车、增程车型当月均遭遇下滑，同比跌幅分别为2.04%和12.53%。 自主与海外品牌的竞争中，今年9月份自主品牌总销量达到147.7万辆，同比增长了11.38%，市场份额首次突破65%，达到了65.42%。而海外品牌的份额则首次跌破35%，9月份上险量同比下滑了7.4%。 自主阵营：比亚迪持续下滑，吉利银河月销破10万 自主阵营里，比亚迪在国内市场依然遥遥领先，9月份上险量达到了34.3万辆，但是纵向和自己对比的话，其9月份同比继续下滑，跌幅为10.55%。 而在经过连续3个月的持续下跌后，比亚迪1～9月累计销量仅较去年同期增长1.63%，如果未来四季度里，比亚迪依然不能止跌，那么今年比亚迪有可能会遭遇2020年之后的首次年度下跌。 进入9月份后，吉利集团的同比增幅终于有所收窄，但是依然高达44.94%，这并不代表吉利的势头有所减弱，而是去年9月份开始，吉利整体就已经进入了大幅增长阶段，如今吉利依然能保持四成以上的增幅，依然非常强劲。 吉利银河在9月份首次迎来月销破10万的成就，达到了12.2万辆，同比暴涨176.9%，不过需要指出的是，9月份吉利将熊猫mini的销量从吉利划归到了银河品牌，这是其销量大涨的一个重要原因。
D | 即便熊猫mini被划走，吉利品牌9月份上险量依然保持正增长，以7.5万辆的成绩同比增长1.7%，自此吉利品牌彻底卸下了销量核心主力的角色，成为银河品牌的辅助。 今年以来一直被奇瑞紧咬的长安，9月份总算拉开了一些差距，以11.7万辆的上险量实现了13.8%的同比增长，全年累计销量达到95.1万辆，较奇瑞汽车的90.8万辆多了4万多辆，而奇瑞在9月份的成绩为11.3万辆，同比下滑了2.78%。 除此之外，上汽通用五菱9月份上险量9.8万辆，同比增长2.6%；长城汽车6.9万辆，同比增长19.3%；广汽4.8万辆，同比下滑17.65%。 最后值得一提的是上汽，名爵品牌9月份上险量1.7万辆，同比暴涨1.3倍，这是因为其电动小车MG4立了大功，9月上险量直接破万，达到1.2万辆，为上汽自主打开了新的局面。 合资品牌：整体格局延续前月，日产转跌 合资阵营各家主要品牌，9月份基本延续了前几个月的态势，没有多少变动。 大众品牌9月份上险量总计15.96万辆，同比下滑18.21%，前九个月累计下滑4.96%； 丰田品牌9月上险量13.9万辆，同比下滑4.2%，其中广汽丰田实现了4.97%的增长，一汽丰田12.7%的跌幅拖了后腿。 本田品牌9月份同比下滑9.6%，东本、广本总销量只有5.4万辆，累计销量不足50万辆，同比跌幅扩大到了21.85%。 而自6月份开始连续3个月实现正增长的东风日产，9月份再次遭遇下滑，同比下跌了5.98%，背后原因除了核心车型轩逸持续萎缩外，日产N7当月销量也从此前万辆规模，下跌到7千辆以内。 不过日产依然具有新的增长潜力，其定位10万元内的插混轿车N6已经完成申报，目标瞄准秦L DM-i、银河A7等爆款，上市后的销量表现，是有望超越N7的，这就能给日产带来不可忽视的新增量。 豪华品牌：奥迪艰难止跌，BBA节奏开始分化 传统豪华品牌阵营里，属于第一梯队的BBA，近几年整体也算是共进退，外部市场剧烈变化下，三家车企的涨跌、销量，始终保持了惊人的同步。今年前九个月，奔驰、宝马、奥迪的上险量，分别为42.98万、43.76万和42.02万辆，极其接近。 但是看9月份单月销量，情况已经出现了分化。
E | 宝马、奥迪9月份实现同比增长，增幅分别为7.82%和2.59%，但两者增长原因并不相同，宝马增长的主因依然源自去年涨价所引起的销量下跌，而奥迪的止跌，则归功于两款重磅车型的上市。 今年9月份，一汽奥迪A5L、上汽奥迪A5L Sportback，上险量分别达到3662和3445辆，二者总计为奥迪品牌贡献了7千多的增量。尤其是对于上汽奥迪，A5L Sportback是其第一款一定程度上能够走量的产品，意义深远。 除了A5L系列外，上汽奥迪也推出了一款专为中国市场打造的纯电轿车E5 Sportback，9月中旬上市，当月上险量达到695辆，这款车的产品力、性价比都在向中国品牌电车看齐，这也是奥迪相比奔驰、宝马走的比较快的一步。 相较之下，奔驰在9月份依然没能止跌，上险量同比下滑了8.98%。 BBA之外，雷克萨斯、沃尔沃、凯迪拉克和路虎，9月份都处于下滑状态。 新势力阵营：零跑逼近6万辆，蔚来站稳3万+ 新势力阵营中，排名第一的特斯拉，9月份销量跌幅有所收窄，7.09万辆的上险量同比微跌了0.31%，但1～9月累计上险量依然较去年同期下滑了6.42%。 零跑继续高歌猛进，9月份上险量以5.88万辆依然稳居中国新势力品牌第一，单月同比大涨80.5%，累计销量涨幅则达到了101.5%。定位10万内电动轿车的B01，9月销量已经达到1.3万辆，再加上C10和C11，零跑目前已经有3款车型月销过万。 鸿蒙智行9月份上险量总计5.16万辆，同比上涨了26.8%，其中增幅最大的是智界，达到了1.7倍，但是意义最大的则是尊界，S800单月销量进一步增长至1918辆，彻底和奔驰S级、宝马7系、Panamera等百万级豪车拉开了差距。 随着YU7在9月份的销量上涨至2.2万辆，小米单月总销量也首次突破4万辆，今年累计上险量也达到了26.6万辆，距离30万辆已经近在眼前，如果后续表现出色，今年全年甚至有望冲击40万大关。
F | 在8月跌破3万辆之后，理想9月上险量回升到了3.4万辆，仅比蔚来汽车总量多了100余量，同比依然大跌35.3%，全年销量同比下滑12.6%。 不过理想这边也并不全是坏消息，9月份理想i8上险量明显提升，达到了5719辆，MEGA也进一步稳在了3千辆以上，而考虑到理想i6上市后的订单情况，这款入门级纯电SUV，也完全有望成为L6之外理想汽车的另一个销量支柱。
G | 蔚来汽车9月份再创新高，三个品牌总销量达到3.42万辆，其中乐道L90稳在了万辆以上，同时萤火虫也实现突破，9月销量达到5896辆。蔚来品牌虽然仍在下滑，但全新ES8还未正式发力，我们需要等到10月数据出炉，再看这款车究竟能否真正将蔚来汽车带回新势力第一梯队。 本文来自微信公众号：autocarweekly，作者：萝吉。
Current article:http://k4585.yindabobiehonggaonumiao.bond/news/20260826_5843.html
Published on:00:15:37
