The REAL Truth Behind The 'Moore Vs. Alliant Credit Union' Hoax: 5 Shocking Facts About The Actual Supreme Court Tax Ruling

The internet is currently ablaze with rumors about a catastrophic Supreme Court decision—purportedly in a case called Moore v. Alliant Credit Union—that has allegedly declared all fiat currency null and void, invalidating mortgages and collapsing the modern financial system. As of December 14, 2025, this claim is unequivocally false and is a viral conspiracy theory that has spread rapidly across social media and certain niche forums. The confusion stems from a very real, but entirely different, landmark Supreme Court case decided recently that bears a similar name: Moore v. United States. This actual ruling, delivered on June 20, 2024, has profound implications for American tax law, but it has absolutely nothing to do with credit unions, mortgages, or the validity of the U.S. Dollar.

This article cuts through the noise to provide the most current, verified, and in-depth details on the actual Supreme Court decision that has captured the nation's attention, while definitively debunking the widespread misinformation. The true story of Moore v. United States is a constitutional showdown over the power of Congress to tax, a legal battle that has reshaped the landscape of corporate and individual taxation for years to come.

The Real Case: Moore v. United States (2024) Biography and Core Issue

The actual, highly-anticipated Supreme Court case is titled Charles G. Moore, et ux., Petitioners v. United States, with the official citation being 602 U.S. ___ (2024). This landmark decision centered on a fundamental question of constitutional law: Does the Sixteenth Amendment permit Congress to tax income that has been realized by a corporation but has not yet been distributed to its shareholders?

• The One Where They Tanked Jokes 15 Shocking New Secrets From The Friends Tv Show Behind The Scenes G9zdh

• Petitioners: Charles G. Moore and Kathleen Moore, a couple from Washington state.
• The Core Investment: The Moores owned a minority stake (approximately 13%) in KisanKraft, a Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) based in India that supplies equipment to small farmers.
• The Tax at Issue: The Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), also known as the Section 965 Transition Tax, which was enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA).
• The Moores' Argument: They argued that the MRT was unconstitutional because it taxed "unrealized" income—profits that KisanKraft had earned but had not yet paid out to them as dividends. They asserted that under the Direct Tax Clause and the Sixteenth Amendment, income must be "realized" by the taxpayer before it can be taxed.
• The Government's Argument: The U.S. Government argued that Congress has the power to attribute a corporation's realized and undistributed income to its shareholders and tax them on it, citing precedents involving partnerships and other pass-through entities.
• The Ruling Date: June 20, 2024.

Fact Check: Why the 'Moore v. Alliant Credit Union' Fiat Currency Rumor is a Hoax

The viral narrative suggesting that the Supreme Court invalidated all fiat currency in a case involving Alliant Credit Union is a complete fabrication. This misinformation campaign appears to be a conflation of the real Moore v. United States tax case with long-running conspiracy theories, often promoted by "Sovereign Citizen" groups, which claim that U.S. currency and debt instruments are illegitimate.

The key facts that debunk this hoax are:

1. No Supreme Court Case Exists: There is no record of a Supreme Court case titled Moore v. Alliant Credit Union that reached a decision in 2024 or 2025. The Supreme Court's docket does not contain this ruling.
2. The Real Case is About Tax, Not Currency: The actual case, Moore v. United States, dealt exclusively with the constitutionality of a specific international tax provision (the MRT) and the definition of "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment.
3. The Ruling Date Was Falsified: Hoax claims often cite a future or recent date (e.g., January 17, 2025) for the decision, while the real Moore v. United States was decided on June 20, 2024.
4. The Economic Impact is Impossible: A ruling that declared all fiat currency null and void would instantly collapse the global economy. No legitimate court, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court, would issue such a decision, and it would be headline news across every major, reputable outlet globally.

5 Shocking Facts About the Moore v. United States Tax Ruling

While the credit union rumor is false, the real Moore v. United States decision is a monumental ruling that has significant consequences for tax law, the realization principle, and the future of wealth taxation in America. Here are the five most critical takeaways from the 7-2 decision:

• The Untouchable Privacy 7 Secrets Of Rachel Mcadams And Jamie Lindens Life Beyond The Red Carpet E820e

1. The Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT) Was Upheld

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote, Affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT). This tax required U.S. shareholders of Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs) to pay a one-time tax on the CFC's accumulated foreign earnings, even if those earnings were never distributed to the shareholders. The ruling validated Congress's power to enact this specific provision.

2. The Court Avoided Defining the 'Realization' Principle

The most significant aspect of the ruling is what the majority opinion, written by Justice Kavanaugh, *did not* do. The Court specifically limited its holding to the unique facts of the case, stating that Congress may tax the realized and undistributed income of an entity to the entity's shareholders. Crucially, the Court did not definitively resolve the broader constitutional question of whether a tax on *unrealized* income—such as a wealth tax on the appreciation of assets—is permissible under the Sixteenth Amendment.

3. The Ruling Narrows Future Wealth Tax Challenges

By upholding the MRT, the Supreme Court prevented a potential "tax apocalypse" that could have invalidated large portions of the existing U.S. tax code, including rules for S-corporations, partnerships, and other pass-through entities. However, the narrowness of the ruling means that future challenges to a pure wealth tax (a tax on appreciation before sale) remain possible. This decision essentially kicked the can down the road on the most contentious constitutional tax question of the modern era.

• The Enduring Legacy Of Haylor 5 Shocking Facts About Harry Styles And Taylor Swifts Relationship 10 Years Later Sf662

4. Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson Concurred, But With Caveats

The 7-2 majority was complex. While seven Justices voted to affirm the tax, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed separate concurring opinions. Justice Jackson's concurrence, in particular, argued for a broader interpretation of Congress’s taxing power, suggesting that the Moores’ argument was based on a flawed historical understanding of the Sixteenth Amendment. This unusual alignment highlights the deep divisions on the Court regarding the constitutional limits of federal taxation.

5. The Dissent Warned of Future Unconstitutional Taxes

Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a strong dissent, arguing that the majority's decision effectively severed the requirement that income must be "realized" to be taxed, thereby opening the door to future unconstitutional wealth taxes. They argued that the MRT was a tax on property, not income, and should therefore be classified as an unapportioned direct tax, which is prohibited by the Constitution. This dissent frames the *Moore* case as a critical step toward an era of potentially unrestricted federal taxation.

The Lasting Impact on Tax Law and the Realization Principle

The Moore v. United States ruling is a definitive win for the U.S. Treasury and the existing structure of international tax law. It confirms that the government can continue to use complex attribution rules to tax American shareholders on the income earned by their foreign corporations. The decision preserves the integrity of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax, a provision that generated hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. government.

Ultimately, the true significance of the Moore case is its careful preservation of the status quo while deliberately leaving the "wealth tax" question unanswered. It is a narrowly tailored ruling that addressed a specific tax provision without creating a sweeping precedent that would either validate or invalidate a future tax on unrealized gains. For now, the constitutional debate over the "realization principle"—the idea that a tax event must occur (like a sale) before income is generated—continues, making tax law one of the most dynamic and closely watched areas of the Supreme Court's docket.