In Zuch v. Commissioner,97 F.4th 81 (3rd Cir. 3/22/24), CA3 here and GS here, the Court starts the opinion of the Court as follows:
When Congress grants taxpayers the
right to challenge what the Internal Revenue Service says is owed to the
government, Congress's will prevails. The IRS cannot say that such a right
exists only under the circumstances it prescribes. That ought to go without
saying, but this case requires us to say it.
This signals that the rest of the opinion is not favorable to the IRS.
I infer from Judge Jordan’s Wikipedia page here and even this opinion with some hyperbole that Judge Jordan is not an IRS skeptic like some other judges; Judge Jordan’s appointment to the Court of Appeals was unanimous (91 for, 0 against, and 9 not voting (including then Senator Biden). See Senate Vote Summary, here.
So what is Judge Jordan’s disaffection with the IRS? The Court summarizes in the next two paragraphs:
The IRS sent Jennifer Zuch a notice
informing her that it intended to levy on her property to collect unpaid tax.
She challenged the levy, arguing that she had prepaid the tax. The IRS
Independent Office of Appeals (the "IRS Office of Appeals") sustained
the levy, and Zuch petitioned the United States Tax Court for review of that
decision. While the issue was being litigated in that Court over several years,
the IRS withheld tax refunds owed to Zuch and applied them to what it said was
her unpaid balance, satisfying it in full. When, according to the IRS's
accounting, there was no more tax to be paid, the IRS filed a motion to dismiss
the Tax Court proceeding for mootness, and the Court granted the motion.
Because Zuch's claim is not moot, we will vacate the dismissal and remand this matter to the Tax Court to determine whether Zuch's petition is meritorious.
