A common theme in Justice Barrett’s opinions is her insistence on attorneys thoroughly developing their arguments. She expects a clear and logical presentation of each step in an argument to meet the burden of proof. The case of Brackeen v. Haaland highlights this meticulous approach.
This approach was once again evident in the case of Moore v. United.
The question of Congress’s authority to attribute the income of closely held corporations to their shareholders is complex, and unfortunately, the parties did not adequately address it. Without a focused discussion on the attribution issue, I am unable to make a decision. While the constitutionality of subpart F and the MRT’s attribution of income from closely held foreign corporations to their shareholders is uncertain, the Moores have conceded the constitutionality of subpart F in this case. As the Moores have not met their burden of proof, I agree with the Court’s decision to affirm the lower court’s judgment.
It is generally the taxpayers’ responsibility to demonstrate their entitlement to a refund. United States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 440 (1976); see also Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 S. 255, 277–278 (2023) (burden to show unconstitutionality).
Admittedly, I have not thoroughly reviewed the record, so I cannot comment on what was meant by “barely addressed.” Regardless, it was evidently insufficient for Justice Barrett.
On a side note, the title of this post may not directly relate to its content, but I found the pun amusing. It could potentially serve as a clever title for a law student’s note. Feel free to use it at your discretion!
