If you read the NPR article, you’ll realize that the issue at hand isn’t about paying tax on income received, but rather, addressing the nuance to what should be defined as income. The Indian investor never sold his initial investment, but there were back door financial transactions that were all-but income, seemingly as a favor for being an east investor.
There's also "more to the story" where the plaintiff appears to have been on the board of the foreign company as well. This almost seems like a case where they are trying to take an extremely complex nuanced tax case, strip away all the "color", and try that component.
This over being taxed on $15K, tells me there are some bigger players in this case vs some farmer who wanted to take this case to the supreme court over "principle"
Well there is one bit about a tax on a one-time transfer of wealth out of the country, and (correct me if I'm wrong here) the value of the transfer seemed to be the value of the stake in the company, not the value of the initial investment.
1. The "investor" was actively involved in the company for some time, so there is an argument that the profits of the company can pass through as personal income, like a LLC or S-corp. The short-term loans (60 days) at high interest rates (12%) that just sat in a bank is definitely sus.
2. The trump tax cuts had a provision to bring these profits home. Previously, if you received profits off-shore, and kept them off-shore, you would not be taxed until you reshored them. The main target here in was the bigger corps, who, according to NPR, have complied
