昼颜

B |     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.。伊朗知名学者、德黑兰大学亚洲研究中心主任哈米德·瓦法埃在接受中央广播电视总台记者专访时表示，上合组织是重要的新型区域组织，它将为地区乃至全球发展作出巨大贡献。

C | 总台记者 李健南：上合组织建立之初，不少西方媒体看衰它的前景，认为很快就会从国际舞台上消失。但是现在，上合组织正在不断地发展壮大，为什么越来越多的国家，包括伊朗想加入上合组织，您认为上合组织的吸引力是什么？德黑兰大学亚洲研究中心主任 哈米德·瓦法埃：这个问题很重要，在上合组织成立之初，一些西方国家并不看好，但随着时间的推移以及国际形势的变化和发展，现在我们看到上海合作组织的影响力越来越大，也有越来越多的成员加入。西方国家看衰上合组织是由于西方媒体和西方政府的陈旧观念，这些观念主要是在冷战环境下以及单边主义国际体系下产生的。如今的国际环境发生了很大变化，我们正在目睹国际体系的多极化，在多极化的世界里为不同国家提供合作条件的组织变得很重要，也更具吸引力。因此，伊朗、巴基斯坦、土耳其、沙特等地区大国都想加入上合组织。世界正在走向多极化和多边合作，这也是上合组织的吸引力所在。总台记者 李健南：伊朗总统莱希近日表示，伊朗非常重视与上合组织成员国之间的合作，因为这可以将伊朗与亚洲的经济基础设施联系起来，您认为莱希总统具体指的是哪些经济领域？另外，除了地区的经贸合作外，伊朗还期待在上合框架下在哪些方面深化合作？德黑兰大学亚洲研究中心主任 哈米德·瓦法埃：新合作领域将包括经济安全、能源安全、金融交易安全等，这些是新的安全领域范畴，这些领域受到一些西方国家，特别是美国的威胁。

D | 在我看来，除了经济合作外，安全领域会是一个很好的合作领域，也应该受到上合组织成员国的关注，伊朗也有能力将这项工作做好。总台记者 李健南：虽然上合组织成员国“结伴不结盟”，但是西方恶意揣测上合组织是所谓的“东方北约”，您是如何看待这一观点？德黑兰大学亚洲研究中心主任 哈米德·瓦法埃：上合组织同北约有着本质区别。北约是一个军事组织，上合是经济和安全领域的合作组织，并没有像北约那样有军事层面的计划。北约的存在具有破坏性，他们在阿富汗等国家制造杀戮，当北约的飞机从阿富汗撤离起飞时，一些人从飞机上掉了下来，所有人都目睹了北约的失败。地区国家需要的是合作和参与，而不是军事分裂力量。我们研究上合组织文件就会发现，它描述的是“上海精神”，正是平等合作与共同发展，上合组织成员国不需要占领他国，也不需要攻击任何人，这种通过合作的发展是可行的。上合组织不同于西方一家独大的合作方式，而是各国坐在一起平等协商的东方合作模式。总台记者 李健南：您曾经说过，世界上没有任何一种作为标尺的民主模式，每一个国家的人民都应该找到自己的民主模式和发展道路，而且您认为中国人民已经找到了适合自己的道路，作为伊朗知名的亚洲问题研究学者，您认为中国的经验对亚洲的其他国家，以及上合国家有什么样的借鉴意义？德黑兰大学亚洲研究中心主任 哈米德·瓦法埃：每个国家都应该找到自己独特的治理模式。把西方模式强加给东方国家，甚至把一国模式强加给其他国家都是错误的。每个国家都应基于自身的国情、目标、民族特点等设立自己的目标。而正如我们看到的那样，中国已经找到了有效的模式实现了发展，这个模式值得学习。

E | 很多国家都在研究中国模式，它对于许多东方国家找到适合自己国情的道路，并以此为基础规划本国的经济发展有着重要的借鉴意义。总台记者 李健南：中国国家主席习近平在去年9月21日的联大一般性辩论中提出了全球发展倡议，另外，在今年4月21日的博鳌论坛开幕式上发出全球安全倡议。请问您如何理解这两个全球倡议，您认为这两个倡议对上合组织理念有什么样的发展和推动作用？德黑兰大学亚洲研究中心主任 哈米德·瓦法埃：波斯文学中有一首诗歌说，“人类是一个整体的成员”。意思是所有人、所有国家就像是一个整体的不同组成部分，这首诗歌还提到，“如果一个肢体遭受痛苦，其他部位也会感到不适”。这正是习近平主席提出的两个倡议所蕴含的道理，人类的安全与发展应该被视为一个整体。在当今国际背景下，上合组织给了我们很多机会加强双边和多边交流、集体协作，这正契合习近平主席提出的全球安全与全球发展倡议，需要我们共同携手，加强合作。

Current article:http://x7kc.nenyaogecebenliexi.shop/news/20260826_3202.html

Published on:16:52:54