- 18 -
significant application or justification. Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854-855 (1992).
The rules set forth in Moore and Van Es and followed by
several opinions1 and orders have not proven to be unworkable.
Furthermore, in the months that have passed since the release
of these opinions and orders, principles of law have not changed
so much as to leave those cases as no more than a remnant of
abandoned doctrine. Additionally, facts have not so changed as
to have robbed Moore and Van Es of significant application or
justification. Thus, the factors set forth by the Supreme Court
in Planned Parenthood do not support Judge Beghe’s suggestion
that there are exceptional circumstances such that Moore and Van
Es should be overruled.
B. Stare Decisis and Statutory Construction
Stare decisis assumes increased importance when the
antecedent cases involved the construction of a statute.
Brewster v. Commissioner, 607 F.2d 1369, 1373-1374 (D.C. Cir.
1979), affg. 67 T.C. 352 (1976). In such cases, Congress can
cure any error made by the Court, and until it does the bar and
1 See Landry v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 60, 62 (2001); Meyer
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 417, 421 (2000); Katz v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 329, 338 (2000); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492,
498 n.6 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181 (2000);
Merriweather v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-88; Boone Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-350; Loadholt Trust v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-349; MacElvain v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-320; Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-319;
Anderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-311.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011