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 addresses whether Section 6404(h) creates a cause of action to sue for abatement of interest.
According to Thomas E. Redding, the parties discuss the established dual‑jurisdiction framework, with pay‑and‑sue jurisdiction in district courts and pre‑payment jurisdiction in the Tax Court.
Background and question before the Court
The dispute involves the scope of Section 6404(h) and whether it provides the sole basis for an interest‑abatement action.
According to Mr. Marcus, the Court is asked whether Congress intended exclusive remedies for tax‑related interest disputes.
What each side argues
Petitioner (John F. Hinck, et ux.)
According to Thomas E. Redding, petitioner argues that the dual‑jurisdiction framework is well‑established and that extending pre‑payment jurisdiction to the Tax Court is consistent with that pattern.
According to Jonathan L. Marcus, petitioner contends that interest on an unpaid tax liability accrues from the time the tax is due until it is paid.
According to Mr. Marcus, petitioner asserts that Section 6404(h) does not create additional remedies in district courts, and that Congress intends any specific remedy to be exclusive.
Respondent (United States)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether there is any basis for an abatement of interest action apart from Section 6404(h).
Justice Scalia asked for clarification on the location of subsection (e)(2) in the materials.
Justice Scalia noted that the consequence of Section 6404(h) is not simply to open the door to additional remedies.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Mr. Marcus, section 6404(h) does not create additional remedies; the Court has applied the rule that when Congress creates a specific remedy, it intends that remedy to be exclusive.
Justice Scalia observed that the consequence of subsection (h) is not simply to open the door to additional remedies.
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.
- c510bd1ceee32ac714c6-r1-089bda8e78197f7b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.