17 Apr Argument analysis:: Justices face exactly what counts as “cash”
If anybody in the courtroom had actually forgotten that tomorrow is the due date for submitting federal tax return, Thomas Dupree, counsel for the petitioners in Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, existed to alert viewers to their tax commitments. “Tax Day is practically upon us,” Dupree kept in mind in his concluding remarks. And in case you were inclined to attempt, Dupree advised listeners that the Internal Revenue Service “needs that we taxpayers pay our taxes in cash. It will not let taxpayers pay their taxes in stock.”
That, naturally, does not solve the concern provided in Wisconsin Central, which is whether the Railway Retirement Tax Act needs railways and their workers to pay taxes on stock-based settlement. And if the justices had actually reached an agreement on that concern by the end of oral argument, they definitely didn’t reveal it. However they did lead the supporters through a series of vibrant hypotheticals including bottles of wine at Christmas, barrels of wheat on a Chicago products exchange and tickets to a Big league Baseball video game.
Batting leadoff was Dupree, who represents 3 subsidiaries of the Canadian National Train Business that are taking legal action against the United States for a $13 million tax refund. Dupree’s obvious method was to frame this as a case about a single word: “cash.” The RRTA, enacted in 1937, enforces a tax on “settlement,” which is specified as “any type of cash reimbursement paid to a private for services rendered as a staff member.” Dupree argued that the RRTA’s meaning of “settlement” does not use to equip alternatives given to railway workers since “[s] tock is not cash.”
Thomas H. Dupree Jr. for petitioners (Art Lien)
However in the early innings, Dupree dealt with pushback from members of the bench who argued that the case isn’t really so quickly dealt with on the basis of plain language. “It’s not simply that we need to offer indicating to the term ‘cash,'” kept in mind Justice Elena Kagan. “[T] he term we need to take a look at is ‘cash reimbursement.'” Kagan then provided the example of 2 workers– one who makes $200,000 in money plus $5 million in stock-based settlement, and one gets $250,000 in money without any stock. Kagan asked Dupree: “Now who makes more cash?”
Dupree appeared to yield that “in the context of that concern,” it would be “reasonable” to state that the staff member who gets $5 million in stock is the one who makes more cash. However he included that “in the context of this tax statute,” the significance of “cash” is narrower. If “cash reimbursement” indicates any reimbursement, Dupree asked, why would Congress have included the adjective “cash” at all? “That would not make good sense,” he stated.
The justices then invested much of the remainder of the argument aiming to understand exactly what is “cash” and exactly what is not. “I concur with you,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor informed Dupree, that “a bottle of wine at Christmas is not.” Exactly what about baseball tickets? Sotomayor and Dupree both appeared to concur that those would not be taxable under the RRTA either. Dupree then went on to keep in mind that “[i] f I have 2 tickets to the Nationals and Rockies video game, I can offer those and alter those into money a lot faster than I might discover a broker and offer my shares of stock on a market.” (And certainly he most likely could, since Justice Neil Gorsuch– whose home town obligation is to the Colorado Rockies– sat actions away.)
When Rachel Kovner, an assistant to the lawyer basic, stepped up to the plate for the federal government, she faced her own set of hypotheticals. Chief Justice John Roberts asked: “Exactly what about … bushels of wheat?” That may not count, stated Kovner, since “the staff member who gets a bushel of wheat in their settlement, if that were to take place, cannot easily transform it into money in the very same method that they can transform a choice.” Pushing even more on the wheat line of questioning, Roberts inquired about a coupon entitling the staff member “to purchase 20 bushels of wheat on the product exchange.” Kovner concurred that wheat coupons would be closer to the line, keeping in mind that a 1938 policy analyzed “cash reimbursement” to consist of product orders that might be exchanged for items at the business shop.
Kagan then asked whether the wheat-voucher theoretical may be simpler “if a business stated you can take a bushel of wheat or its comparable in money worth.” “Yes,” stated Kovner, including that Kagan’s example is “more comparable” to the case at hand, “where basically the staff member can inspect a box on a kind” and skilled an “basically immediate conversion” of the stock alternatives into money. Kovner likewise advised the justices that stock and stock alternatives are “a primary legal tender now in numerous business contexts and staff member settlement matters.” To omit stock-based settlement from tax under RRTA would, she recommended, open rather a big loophole in the railway tax plan.
Rachel P. Kovner, assistant to the United States lawyer basic (Art Lien)
Kovner went on to highlight a few of the weird effects that would develop if stock-based settlement is not taxed under RRTA. Non-railroad companies and workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on stock alternatives like the ones at problem here. Railways and their workers do not pay Social Security and Medicare taxes under the very same statutes however are taxed under the RRTA rather. “[I] t’s not unusual,” Kovner kept in mind, “for a CEO to obtain $1 in money and the rest of their payment in stock.” Why would Congress desire the railway CEO to be exempt from taxes that other executives face? Then there would be “absolutely nothing to stop” a railway from transforming all settlement for top-level executives to stock or stock-option type, inning accordance with Kovner.
To be sure, that method will not permit railway executives to get away tax totally. On the federal earnings tax (rather than railway retirement tax) returns due tomorrow, people typically should report gains from the workout of stock alternatives as earnings– despite whether they work for a railway or other company. And keep in mind: You cannot pay your tax with stock. Or, for that matter, with bottles of wine, bushels of wheat or tickets to the Nats-Rockies video game.
The post Argument analysis: : Justices grapple with what counts as “money” appeared initially on SCOTUSblog.