A | 讯 据国家统计局消息，今年以来，扩内需、促消费政策措施持续落地见效，我国消费市场规模稳步扩大、发展质量不断提升。 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.。
B | 商品零售扩容升级，服务零售创新拓展，网上零售保持较快增长，消费新业态新模式活力迸发。 消费市场稳定增长，服务消费需求持续释放 1—7月份，社会消费商品和服务零售总额同比增长2.6%；其中服务零售额增长5.0%，增速高于商品零售额3.9个百分点。近三年，服务零售增速持续快于商品零售，消费市场从商品消费主导迈向商品和服务并重的特征明显。居民消费需求日益个性化、多样化、品质化，消费市场更趋多元丰富，我国超大规模市场优势不断彰显。 文体旅市场持续活跃。文体旅深度融合，新业态新场景加速推出，相关消费实现较快增长。1—7月份，旅游咨询租赁服务类、文体休闲服务类零售额增速均超过10%。有关部门数据显示，入境旅游市场持续升温。受益于过境免签等系列便利化政策，上半年入境外国人人次同比增长20.4%，其中免签入境外国人人次增长30.6%。上半年全国营业性演出（不含娱乐场所演出）票房收入增长9.4%。同时，各地体育赛事密集举办，联动文商旅不断催生体育消费新热点。 商品销售规模平稳扩大，城乡结构持续优化 1—7月份，社会消费品零售总额287744亿元，同比增长1.2%；扣除汽车类商品后，消费品零售额增长2.7%。受极端天气等因素影响，7月份市场销售增速比上月回落，但从累计看保持总体平稳。 乡村市场增速快于城镇。乡村全面振兴扎实推进，农村商贸物流体系日益完善，农村市场消费潜力持续激发。1—7月份，乡村消费品零售额38459亿元，同比增长2.4%，增速高于城镇市场1.3个百分点。据测算，包含镇区和乡村的县乡消费品零售额占社会消费品零售总额的比重为39.1%，比上年同期提高0.3个百分点，消费品市场城乡结构进一步优化。 网上零售较快增长，实体零售加快创新发展 新一代人工智能、区块链等技术加快落地应用，网络交易监管持续完善，市场供需对接更为高效，带动线上消费活力持续释放。1—7月份，网上商品和服务零售额同比增长4.8%，其中网上服务零售额增长5.2%，增速高于服务零售额0.2个百分点，网上商品零售额增长4.6%，增速高于商品零售额3.5个百分点。即时配送等新模式加快发展，1—7月份，吃类商品网上零售额增长16.9%，增速比上半年加快0.1个百分点。 实体新业态向优发展。实体零售企业积极开展数字化转型，运用物联网、大数据等技术畅通销售渠道、升级消费体验。1—7月份，限额以上单位通过互联网实现的商品零售额占限额以上单位消费品零售额的比重达28.7%，比上年同期提高2.5个百分点。品类丰富、体验良好的实体新业态增长较快。1—7月份，限额以上单位仓储会员店、无人值守商店零售额同比增速均超过25%；购物中心零售额持续两位数增长；集合店零售额连续三个月增长加快。
C | 基本生活类商品销售增势平稳，绿色智能商品表现向好 1—7月份，商品零售额同比增长1.1%，增速与上半年持平。
D | 限额以上单位中，超六成商品类别零售额实现增长，近四成商品类别零售额增速超过5%。
E | 基本生活类商品销售增势平稳，限额以上单位粮油食品、饮料、烟酒类零售额分别增长7.2%、5.6%和12.4%。
F | 以旧换新政策优化实施，绿色智能商品零售表现良好。1—7月份，限额以上单位高能效等级家电零售额同比增速超30%，比上半年略有加快；包括智能眼镜在内的可穿戴智能设备零售额增速超过一倍；通讯器材类零售额增长15.1%，增速比上半年加快0.7个百分点。版权申明：凡注有“”或电头为“”的稿件，均为独家版权所有，未经许可不得转载或镜像；授权转载必须注明来源为“”，并保留“”的电头。 。
G |
Current article:http://www.rangnehongranlinren.bond/news/20260826_7323.html
Published on:09:07:51