Interested in training for your team? Click here to learn more

Moore v. U.S. and Section 965 Transition Tax: Filing Protective Federal and State Refund Claims Now

Note: CLE credit is not offered on this program

Recording of a 110-minute CPE webinar with Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CPE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford CPE+ Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Conducted on Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926

This webinar will discuss the possible impact of Moore v. United States on taxpayers who paid and are paying the Section 965 transition tax or tax on other perhaps unrealized income. Our panel of astute tax advisers will explain how this case affects certain international taxpayers and provide actionable steps these businesses and individuals should take before relative statutes of limitations expire.


IRC Code Section 965 imposed a transition tax on the earnings of certain specified foreign corporations, although these earnings have not been distributed or repatriated to the U.S. Many taxpayers elected to pay the 2017 assessment over eight years. The Moores have challenged the constitutionality of this tax, stating it is a tax on deemed, and not realized, income. In June 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Moore v. United States. A taxpayer-favorable ruling would have profound federal and state consequences for individual and business taxpayers.

Taxpayers and tax practitioners should carefully consider whether to file protective federal and state refund claims to preserve their right to refunds for years subject to expiring statutes of limitations. States generally treat the taxation of Section 965 income differently for individuals and businesses. Some states allow a full or partial subtraction of Section 965 income for businesses. For individuals, many states conform to federal treatment while others do not. California, for example, conforms as of 2015, which means it does not conform to IRS’ Section 965 treatment. For multistate taxpayers, there could be a reason to file a protective claim in as many as 33 states. The ramifications of a ruling that the Section 965 tax is unconstitutional would be extensive and extend beyond a simple repayment of previous transition tax paid.

Listen as our panel of income tax experts reviews the potential ramifications of Moore v. United States, including proactive steps for taxpayers to take now to ensure their rights to refunds are preserved.



  1. Moore v. U.S. and Section 965 Tax: introduction
  2. Filing federal protective refund claims
  3. Filing state protective refund claims
  4. Considerations beyond refund claims
  5. Best practices


The panel will cover these and other critical issues:

  • Which individuals and entities should file federal protective claims?
  • Which states should tax practitioners consider filing protective refund claims for businesses?
  • To what extent would a taxpayer-favorable ruling affect other areas of tax?
  • What specific criteria must be met when filing a valid federal protective refund claim?


Dill, Brian
Brian D. Dill, JD, LLM

Partner, Tax Services
Cherry Bekaert

Mr. Dill is Partner in charge of international tax. With over 20 years of experience he has extensive experience in...  |  Read More

Froelich, Edward
Edward L. Froelich

McDermott Will & Emery

Mr. Froelich represents clients in audit and litigation on all Federal tax issues. He is a former trial attorney...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

CPE credit is not available on downloads.

CPE On-Demand

See NASBA details.