This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case was heard in oral argument before the Supreme Court at 11:09 a.m.
According to Petitioners' counsel Steven M. Shapiro, petitioners argue that the dispute can be decided on statutory grounds, focusing on the appellate review statute and the public record statute, which makes the Tax Court report a public record.
According to Mr. Shapiro, petitioners contend that the Tax Court report should be part of the appellate record.
According to Mr. Shapiro, petitioners argue that the report is merely an aid to the decision‑maker and should not be given weight.
According to Mr. Shapiro, the appellate court determines what belongs in the record, as illustrated by the IBM v. United States case.
According to Mr. Shapiro, rule 183 does not forbid disclosure of the Tax Court report; it is silent on the point.
According to Mr. Hungar, congress has mandated confidentiality of the initial reports and given the Tax Court plenary authority over special‑trial judges.
According to Mr. Hungar, both trial‑court judges reached the same factual conclusions, indicating a central flaw in the petitioners’ case.
According to Mr. Hungar, the special‑trial judge may withdraw and submit a corrected report during deliberations.
According to Mr. Hungar, petitioners seek disclosure of the original Tax Court report.
- [1] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 1
- [2] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 5
- [3] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 20
- [4] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 22
- [5] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 21
- [6] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 57
- [7] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 54
- [8] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 28
- [9] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 30
- [10] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 36
Background and question before the Court
Justice O'Connor asked whether the case could be decided solely on the statutory question.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Tax Court ever modifies or rejects a special‑trial judge’s report.
Justice Stevens asked about the basis for the original position when evaluating an appeal.
Justice Souter asked whether the findings of fact are delivered to the chief judge in the report before assignment to a Tax Court judge.
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
According to Petitioners' counsel Steven M. Shapiro, the dispute can be decided on statutory grounds, focusing on the appellate review statute and the public record statute.
According to Mr. Shapiro, the Tax Court report should be part of the appellate record.
According to Mr. Shapiro, the report is merely an aid to the decision‑maker and should not be given weight.
According to Mr. Shapiro, the appellate court determines what belongs in the record, as shown by IBM v. United States.
According to Mr. Shapiro, rule 183 does not forbid disclosure of the report; it is silent on the issue.
According to Mr. Hungar, congress has mandated confidentiality of the initial reports and given the Tax Court plenary authority over special‑trial judges.
According to Mr. Hungar, both trial‑court judges reached the same factual conclusions, indicating a central flaw in the petitioners’ case.
According to Mr. Hungar, the special‑trial judge may withdraw and submit a corrected report during deliberations.
According to Mr. Hungar, petitioners seek disclosure of the original Tax Court report.
- [1] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 5
- [2] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 20
- [3] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 22
- [4] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 21
- [5] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 57
- [6] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 54
- [7] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 28
- [8] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 30
- [9] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 36
Respondent’s Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:09 a.m.
Justice O'Connor asked whether the case could be decided solely on the statutory question.
Justice Breyer asked for a page reference.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Tax Court ever modifies or rejects a special‑trial judge’s report.
Justice Stevens asked about the basis for the original position when evaluating an appeal.
Justice Souter asked whether findings of fact are delivered to the chief judge in the report before assignment to a Tax Court judge.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Tax Court ever modifies or rejects a special‑trial judge’s report (follow‑up).
Justice Ginsburg asked whether there is a dissent when there is a full‑court review decision.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens concluded the case was submitted.
- [1] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 1
- [2] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 4
- [3] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 9
- [4] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 24
- [5] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 37
- [6] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 39
- [7] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 43
- [8] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 54
- [9] d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdf, p. 62
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d1aa6342dde4d6ecf92c-r1-0b358f00ebdcb50f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.