A recurring theme in Judge Barrett’s opinions is letting attorneys work on their cases. She couldn’t connect their dots. Unless they take every step of the argument forcefully, they have not met their burden. Bracken v Haaland reflects this pickiness.
And, we see it again Moore v Manchester United.
Congress’s authority to attribute the income of a closely held corporation to its shareholders is a thorny issue—one that, unfortunately, the two parties have done little to address. I can’t solve the attribution problem without highlighting it. Subpart F and the MRT may or may not be a constitutional, non-arbitrary distribution of the income of a closely held foreign corporation to its shareholders. However, in this lawsuit, the Moores acknowledged that Subpart F was constitutional. Tr. Oral arginine. 9. I agree with the Court that Subpart F does not differ significantly from the MRT in the manner in which corporate income is attributed to shareholders. Ante, 20-21. Taxpayers generally have the burden of proving that they are entitled to a tax refund. United States v. Janis, 428 US 433, 440 (1976); see also Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 S. 255, 277–278 (2023) (burden of proving constitutional violation). Given the concessions made by the Moores, they have not yet shouldered that burden here. Therefore, I agree with the Court’s decision and affirm the following judgment.
Frankly, I didn’t check the records carefully, so I don’t know what “barely resolved” means here. But whatever it was, it wasn’t enough for Professor Barrett.
BTW, the title has nothing to do with this post, but I love the pun. I’m sure some law students will find it a useful title for student notes. In the spirit of Brian Frye, you’re welcome to use it however you want!
