The Billionaires Income Tax Act, recently proposed by Senator Ron Wyden, has sparked intense debate surrounding wealth inequality. This ambitious plan includes accrual taxation for publicly traded assets and a deferral charge for non-public assets, with the goal of generating a substantial $507 billion over a decade.
Key provisions of the act include targeting taxpayers with income of $100 million or a net worth exceeding $1 billion for three consecutive years. It also introduces accrual taxation for publicly traded assets, taxing gains annually regardless of realization. For non-publicly traded assets like real estate and closely held businesses, a deferral charge, effectively interest on the deferred taxes on the appreciated assets, is applied upon realization to reflect accrued gains. Additionally, a one-time transition tax is imposed on unrealized gains of tradable and non-tradable assets; and, the stepped-up basis benefit is eliminated for asset transfers after death.
Proponents highlight that the act is projected to generate $507 billion over fiscal years 2022-2031, with significant revenue in the initial five years due to the transition tax. They also emphasize the potential for improved market signals through the accrual taxation of publicly traded assets.
Critics raise valid concerns about the complexity of valuing unsold assets annually, especially privately held businesses, and the associated enforcement challenges. They also note potential liquidity issues for taxpayers with substantial stock holdings but limited cash, which could have negative economic consequences. Furthermore, there is a possibility of tax avoidance through asset division into separate entities to evade the tax threshold. Constitutional questions surround the mark-to-market tax payments (the assigning a value to an asset equal to the current market price of the asset or one calculated based on related standardized assets for which there is a market), particularly if they are later deemed unconstitutional. The current law, that is taxing unrealized gains only at transfer by gift or by death, is more effective, more equitable and more constitutionally sound.
The ongoing Moore Case before the Supreme Court, which questions the constitutionality of taxing unrealized capital gains, holds significant implications for the viability of Senator Wyden's proposal. A decision in favor of taxing unrealized gains would bolster the principles of the Billionaires Income Tax Act, while a ruling against it could undermine the legislation's legal foundation.
The outcome of the Moore Case has the potential to be a landmark decision, shaping the future of wealth taxation in the United States. It not only sets a crucial legal precedent but also serves as a litmus test for the political and societal support for progressive tax measures. The Billionaires Income Tax Act, in conjunction with the Moore Case's ruling, could redefine the landscape of American tax law, particularly in addressing the complexities and inequalities of wealth accumulation and distribution. As the nation watches these developments unfold, the implications for tax policy and economic equality are profound and far-reaching.