For many legal professionals, tax law is not considered the most appealing aspect of the profession. The subject is often seen as intricate and dry, filled with numerical complexities and demanding calculations required to be articulated into understandable language. For some, it may even bring up uncomfortable reminders about hefty personal taxes. It seldom offers the intuitive touch of “I know it when I see it,” an approach often found in other technical law areas like patent law.
This dispassion for tax law extends to the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court as well. Almost all justices on the bench have, at most, limited experience with tax laws. The late Justice Harry Blackmun holds the unique distinction of being the only justice with recognized tax expertise, having dealt with tax cases during his private practice years. This led to speculations that his fellow justices often deferred to him on tax matters due to their general disinterest in the field.
The distaste for tax law among the justices has been openly expressed on multiple occasions. Some would quip that they’d prefer cleaning windows to being assigned opinion-writing duties on a tax case. Justice William Brennan’s usual response to a certiorari request in a tax case was simply, “This is a tax case. Deny.”
Justice Lewis Powell once humorously referred to an unappealing case, especially a tax one, as a “dog” that one wished the Chief Justice had given to a different justice. He recalled a tongue-in-cheek moment when Justice Thurgood Marshall offered him his vote on a dull tax case in exchange for a “future draft pick.”
Justice Blackmun once hinted that receiving a tax case was akin to a punishment. If a justice was out of favor with Chief Justice Warren Burger, they’d end up with the less desirable cases—typically tax or Indian cases.
Understandably, given these attitudes, there’s been speculation that less-favored justices were often burdened with tax cases. Many Supreme Court scholars believed Justice Marshall was often assigned tax issues due to his liberal views clashing with his conservative Chief Justices.
Finally, whether any of the current bench share these sentiments remains undetermined, but if they do, it raises serious concerns about potential deference to agency expertise and possible unfairness to taxpayers and legislature intents.