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.

Starting next year, people who want to buy a new or used electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle will be able to get U.S. government income tax credits at the time of purchase.

Eligible buyers, including those that bought an EV or hybrid this year, have had to wait until they filed their federal income tax returns to actually get the benefits.

The Treasury Department says the near-instant credits of $7,500 for an eligible new vehicle and $4,000 for a qualifying used vehicle should lower purchasing costs for consumers and help car dealers by boosting EV sales.

Under the Inflation Reduction Act, which included the credits, buyers can transfer the credits to dealers, which can apply them at the point of sale starting Jan. 1.

Plus, the government says people can get the full credits from dealers regardless of how much they owe in federal taxes.

The vehicles have to qualify under guidelines spelled out in the law, and buyers’ incomes have to fall below limits.

Dealers have to hold state or local licenses in order to offer the credits, and they must register on an Internal Revenue Service website. After dealers turn in the sales paperwork, dealers can expect to get payments from the government within about 72 hours, officials said.

To be eligible, electric vehicles or plug-ins have to be manufactured in North America. SUVs, vans and trucks can’t have a sticker price greater than $80,000, while cars can’t sticker for more than $55,000.

Used electric vehicles can’t have a sale price of more than $25,000.

There also are income limits for buyers set up to stop wealthier people from getting the credits. Buyers cannot have an adjusted gross annual income above $150,000 if single, $300,000 if filing jointly and $225,000 if head of a household.

To qualify, buyers have to be below the income limits either in the year of purchase or the prior year. If their income exceeds the limits both years and they took the credits, they’ll have to repay them when they file their income tax returns, the government said.

There also are requirements for battery and component manufacturing that could disqualify some vehicles or make them eligible for only part of the tax credits.

Treasury Department guidelines still have to wind their way through the government regulatory process, including a public comment period.

Sales of new electric vehicles for the first nine months of the year rose 50.9% from the same period a year ago, pushing the EV market share up slightly to 7.5%. U.S. consumers bought 875,798 EVs from January through September.

Hunter Biden sued the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, claiming that two agents publicly alleging tax-probe interference wrongly shared his personal information, a case that comes amid escalating legal and political struggles as the 2024 election looms.

The agents “targeted and sought to embarrass Mr. Biden” with the sharing of confidential tax information in press interviews and testimony before Congress, the suit said. His lawyers argue that whistleblower protections don’t apply, but a lawyer for one agent said any confidential information released came under whistleblower authorization and called the suit a “frivolous smear.”

The lawsuit marks the latest legal pushback from Biden as a long-running federal investigation into him unfolds against a sharply political backdrop. That includes an impeachment inquiry aimed at his father, President Joe Biden, seeking to tie him to his son’s business dealings.

“Mr. Biden is the son of the President of the United States. He has all the same responsibilities as any other American citizen, and the IRS can and should make certain that he abides by those responsibilities,” the suit states. “Similarly, Mr. Biden has no fewer or lesser rights than any other American citizen, and no government agency or government agent” has free rein to violate his rights simply because of who he is.

The suit says the IRS hasn’t done enough to halt the airing of his personal information. It seeks to “force compliance with federal tax and privacy laws” and damages of $1,000 for every unauthorized disclosure.

IRS supervisory special agent Greg Shapley, and a second agent, Joe Ziegler, have claimed there was a pattern of “slow-walking investigative steps” into Hunter Biden in testimony before Congress. They alleged that the prosecutor overseeing the investigation, Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, didn’t have full authority to bring charges in other jurisdictions. Weiss and the Justice Department have denied that.

Shapley’s lawyer called the lawsuit a “frivolous smear” that sought to “intimidate any current and future whistleblowers.” He didn’t release confidential tax information except through legal whistleblower disclosures, his attorney said. “Once Congress released that testimony, like every American citizen, he has a right to discuss that public information.”

The IRS is showcasing its new capability to aggressively audit high-income tax dodgers as it makes the case for sustained funding and tries to avert budget cuts sought by Republicans who want to gut the agency.

IRS leaders said they collected $38 million in delinquent taxes from more than 175 high-income taxpayers in the past few months.

In one case, an individual had used money owed to the government to buy a Maserati and a Bentley, and roughly 100 high-income people tried to get favorable tax treatment through Puerto Rico without meeting certain tax requirements. Many of those cases are expected to face criminal investigation.

“It just shows you how much money is out there in delinquent taxes, and there are so many more cases for us to tackle,” said new IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, just four months into the job. “There’s just a significant opportunity there.”

No comparable figures exist for how those high-dollar tax collections compared with previous years, said Jodie Reynolds, speaking for the agency. Rather, the new data reflect an initiative that started after the agency received a new funding stream through the Inflation Reduction Act passed in August by Democrats.

The new data collection “is an example of work we expect to continue to focus on with IRA funding,” she said.

Werfel, in a call with reporters on Thursday, also cited the federal tax collector’s enhanced ability to identify tax delinquents from resources provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

The agency was in line for an $80 billion infusion under the law but that money is vulnerable to potential cutbacks. House Republicans built a $1.4 billion reduction to the IRS into the debt ceiling and budget cuts package passed by Congress this summer. The White House said the debt deal also has a separate agreement to take $20 billion from the IRS over the next two years and divert that money to other non-defense programs.

A Wisconsin taxpayers group that unsuccessfully brought a lawsuit seeking to block President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

The Brown County Taxpayers Association on Wednesday asked the high court to put the program on hold and consider the group’s appeal. Federal officials have not responded to the filing, WLUK-TV reported.

The suit filed by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of the taxpayers group argued it was an overextension of executive power that improperly sidestepped Congress.

The complaint was thrown out by a federal judge in Wisconsin and then rejected by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. U.S. District Judge William C. Griesbach also nixed an emergency motion for injunction.

The debt relief plan began accepting applications on Monday.

Biden enacted the program under the HEROES Act, which was passed after the Sept. 11 attacks sparked an American-led military campaign aimed at terrorism. The act gave the executive branch authority to forgive student loan debt in association with military operations or national emergencies.

An appellate court judge has upheld Seattle’s payroll tax, affirming a decision made in King County Superior Court last year.

In an opinion published Tuesday, the Division I Court of Appeals deemed Seattle’s JumpStart tax lawful, The Seattle Times reported.

“Engaging in business is a substantial privilege on which the city may properly levy taxes,” the opinion reads. “And the use of a business’s payroll expense is an appropriate measure of that taxable incident.”

The tax, passed by the Seattle City Council in 2020, requires businesses with at least $7 million in annual payroll to pay between 0.7%-2.4% on salaries and wages paid to Seattle employees who make at least $150,000 per year. The highest rate is applied to salaries of at least $400,000 at companies with at least $1 billion in annual payroll.

In 2021, the tax brought $231 million in revenue to the city.

The lawsuit, filed by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce in December 2020, asked the King County Superior Court to strike down the tax, calling it illegal.

The lawsuit was dismissed by a King County Superior Court judge last summer, and the chamber appealed the decision.

The chamber in a statement Tuesday said it will review the latest decision and determine their next step with members and attorneys.

An Illinois tax agency has ruled that former President Donald Trump is due a $1 million refund on the 2011 tax bill for his downtown Chicago skyscraper, but local officials are trying to block the refund.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that at issue is the Cook County Board of Review’s estimation of the value of the the Trump International Hotel & Tower’s rooms and retail space. In June, the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board voted 5-0 to reduce the assessment on the building’s commercial property.

The vote means that Trump is owed $1.03 million, money that would come out of the property taxes due the city of Chicago, the Chicago Public Schools and several other government agencies. The Cook County State’s Attorney is disputing the refund and has filed a lawsuit with the Illinois Appellate Court in the hopes of blocking it.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle over Trump’s tax bills that started more than 12 years ago and has led to more than $14 million in tax breaks for Trump. It also involves not only a former president who is at the middle of a host of legal battles but a Chicago alderman whose own legal troubles had been making headlines in Chicago for months.

Alderman Edward M. Burke, whose former law firm, Klafter & Burke, won the tax breaks for Trump, has been indicted on federal charges that he blocked businesses from getting city permits unless they hired the firm. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

The dispute over the tax bills on the high-rise building has it’s own long history. Originally, the state agency rejected Trump’s argument that the vacant stores had no value because he could not find any tenants to lease them. A hearing officer for the state agency rejected Trump’s argument that the vacant stores at the building had no value because he couldn’t lease them. But a staff member later wrote a report that Trump was entitled to the refund.

The agency delayed acting on the case until Trump was out of office and in June voted to reduce the assessment on the building’s commercial property.