dude58677
Member

I can see a Seinfeld episode over the Chevron Doctrine being overturned if the show was still on the air? Newman gets appointed to be in charge of rule -making for the postal service and comes up with an interpretation to put Jerry away for good even with very little evidence. The rule that Newman comes up with is that it is frivolous to defend yourself in court over mail fraud and Jerry gets arrested. When arrested the postal inspectors tell Jerry what he is arrested for such as violation of postal regulations and Jerry says to himself “Newman “. Jerry meets Newman and says there is no proof of his wrongdoing. Newman says with an evil laugh “Not so fast funny boy” and tell him about the Chevron Doctrine. In court the Judge says because of the Chevron Doctrine, Jerry is guilty and must go to jail. Kramer hires Jackie Chiles to defend Jerry and says in court “Chevron Doctrine? This is preposterous and outrageous.” The Supreme Court Justice Art Van Delay reads the opinion overturning the Chevron Doctrine and Jerry is free to go. The episode ends with Newman having a panic attack and Jerry laughing at Newman saying “That’s a shame!”

Yea, so the Loper case stated that any statute that is vague cannot be automatically deferred to IRS interpretation and the IRS would have to prove that the interpretation of that statute was valid. Too much if it though as Irwin Schiff said is vague so an argument that it is void for vagueness can win in court. With the Chevron doctrine it the IRS called that challenge frivolous then that is how the court would have to rule. Now that actually have to reason in court or compete against their opponent in court instead of having a victory handed to them. They have to earn it!

I didn’t say that it did. I was making a new argument.

Final paragraph of Moore vs US “ (d) The Court’s holding is narrow and limited to entities treated as pass-throughs. Nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity. Nor does this decision attempt to resolve the parties’ disagreement over whether realization is a constitutional requirement for an income tax.” “Notwithstanding this precedent, the Government asserts its power to tax without apportion- ment all economic gains, including appreciation in property value. The Court does not address this issue.“ Any Coney Barrett concurring opinion

Not if it is “dismissal with prejudice.”? Plus with Loper the challenges won’t be treated as frivolous because the IRS has to prove their case unlike with Chevron. The ruling you are referring(Us vs Moore) to made it a limited ruling.

There could be a Trump Judge that agrees with Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. That might drop the case against a criminal defendent based on Loper and the defendant can’t be tried twice.

The tax honesty movement is also vindicated.