MOOT

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch

Issues

Does a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation hearing on an IRS proposed tax levy become moot if disputes about the underlying levy no longer exist?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a proceeding about an IRS proposed levy to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a dispute regarding the proposed levy. Commissioner of Internal Revenue contends that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction because there was no longer a live dispute and the petitioner lacked any cognizable interest in the case. Zuch argues that the Tax Court retained jurisdiction because the parties continued to have an interest in the case since the Tax Court could determine petitioner’s right to a refund. The outcome of this case affects the scope of Tax Court proceedings under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 and impacts taxpayers. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.

In 1993, Jennifer Zuch married Patrick Gennardo. Zuch v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. v. Fikre

Issues

Does the voluntary cessation exception to mootness apply when the government removes an individual from the No Fly List and asserts it will not put them back on it given the available information without also repudiating past inclusion on that list or acknowledging a discrete policy change which informed the removal?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Yonas Fikre’s (“Fikre”) removal from the No Fly List in 2016, alongside a sworn declaration indicating he would not be placed back on it “based on the currently available information,” makes moot his case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) regarding his placement on the No Fly List. Fikre argues that although the FBI removed him from its No Fly List in 2016, the government’s guarantees are insufficient to show that he will not be put back on the list for the original reasons, and as such his claim is still valid until the government voluntarily acquiesces to his requests or repudiates its inclusion of him on the list. The FBI counters by indicating that its sworn declaration would necessarily include all information which resulted in Fikre’s inclusion on the No Fly List in 2010 and his removal from it in 2016. Therefore, the FBI argues it is sufficient to prove Fikre would not be relisted for the same reasons as before, and to demand any more would require a showing of bad faith on the part of the government and unnecessarily endanger national security. The outcome of this case has serious implications for national security and the transparency of classified government programs like the No Fly List.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are moot given that he was removed from the No Fly List in 2016 and the government provided a sworn declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information.”

In 2003, President George W. Bush executed Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, instructing the attorney general to create the Terrorist Screening Center, an interdepartmental entity which consolidates every government terrorist watchlist into the Terrorist Screening Database (“Screening Database”) and organizes them into respective lists. Fikre v. Fed.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to MOOT