Additional opinions from Thursday, June 12

On Thursday, June 12, the Supreme Court also released the following opinions:

— In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch, the court considered whether a tax court has jurisdiction to hear a taxpayer’s appeal of a proposed levy to collect unpaid taxes once imposing a levy is no longer an option because the taxes have been paid in full.

In an 8-1 decision by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court held that tax courts no longer have jurisdiction under these circumstances. Specifically, Barrett wrote that “[b]ecause there was no longer a proposed levy, the Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve questions about Zuch’s disputed tax liability.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court’s decision will allow the IRS to avoid accountability for its mistakes and could result in the taxpayer finding “herself without any way to challenge the IRS’s error or prevent the agency from keeping more of her money than is lawfully due.”  

— In Soto v. United States, the court considered whether a statute providing combat-related special compensation to medically retired combat veterans gives those veterans the right to settle their claims under that statute, or whether the veterans must instead follow the default settlement procedures provided under what is known as the Barring Act.

In a unanimous decision by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that the veterans may settle their claims under the statute. While Thomas recognized that the Barring Act “establishes default procedures” for settling claims against the United States government, it also provides that if another law “creates a separate settlement process,” “that process displaces the Act’s settlement mechanism.” According to Thomas, that was the case here, where a separate settlement process was contemplated by the statute’s “plain language.”