October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1541
Can a third party sue for a tax refund under a general statute when a specific statute exists?
The dispute centers on whether a specific tax refund statute blocks a third party from using a general sovereign immunity waiver to sue the government.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Ainsa argued the general statute waives sovereign immunity for third parties.
Ms. Maynard argued specific remedies foreclose general remedies when purposes conflict.
Justice Roberts asked how strict construction of immunity waivers applies here.
Justice Ginsburg asked why a prior case noted the specific statute was unavailable.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case involves a trust seeking a tax refund. The trust argues a general statute allows its suit. The government argues a specific statute controls and blocks the suit.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2007.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
The trust wants the Court to allow its refund suit under the general statute.
The government wants the Court to block the suit because the specific statute controls.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
What each side says
The trust argues the general statute waives sovereign immunity for third parties.
The government argues the specific statute forecloses the general remedy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if the specific-over-general principle applies in tax law.
Justice Stevens asked if the two statutes serve separate functions regarding collection and amount.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Why it matters
This case determines if third parties can sue for refunds under general statutes. It affects how taxpayers challenge government tax collections. It clarifies the scope of sovereign immunity waivers in tax disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-41
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.