Court Opinion

ID: 9556866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 21:01:04.24535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:00.882323
License: Public Domain

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
                                       File Name: 23a0187p.06

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

                                                             ┐
 JOSHUA JARRETT; JESSICA JARRETT,
                                                             │
                               Plaintiffs-Appellants,        │
                                                              >        No. 22-6023
                                                             │
        v.                                                   │
                                                             │
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                   │
                                  Defendant-Appellee.        │
                                                             ┘

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
               No. 3:21-cv-00419—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.

                                     Argued: July 26, 2023

                              Decided and Filed: August 18, 2023

             Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; DAVIS and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

                                      _________________

                                            COUNSEL

ARGUED: Cameron T. Norris, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for
Appellants. Ivan C. Dale, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Cameron T. Norris, Jeffrey M. Harris, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY
PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellants. Ivan C. Dale, Jennifer M. Rubin, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Audrey Patten, THE LEGAL
SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, for
Amicus Curiae.
                                      _________________

                                             OPINION
                                      _________________

       SUTTON, Chief Judge. Claiming that he overpaid his 2019 taxes, Joshua Jarrett sued the
Internal Revenue Service for a refund. The IRS responded by issuing a full refund check. Jarrett
 No. 22-6023                        Jarrett, et al. v. United States                        Page 2

refused to cash it. Even so, the district court reasoned that Jarrett had received his due and
dismissed the case as moot. We agree and affirm.

                                                  I.

       Jarrett produces Tezos tokens, a form of cryptocurrency, through a process known as
“staking.” R.61 ¶ 4. As Jarrett sees it, staking uses existing Tezos tokens and computing power
to produce new tokens. If that’s so, he owes tax on the tokens only when he sells or transfers
them. Only at that point would he “realize” income for tax purposes. See 26 U.S.C. § 61(a);
Comm’r v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955); 1 Mertens Law of Fed. Income Tax’n
§§ 5:1, 5:5, 20:3 (2023).

       The Internal Revenue Service views the process differently. Staking, it says, involves an
exchange of goods and services, just like payments, wages, compensation, and other sources of
income. See Rev. Rul. 2023-14 (July 31, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/ysc9776k (explaining the
IRS’s view that staking produces “rewards” that increase gross income when the taxpayer
receives them); Updates to Questions on Digital Assets, IRS.gov (Jan. 24, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/jayejenp (categorizing receipt of “new digital assets resulting from mining,
staking and similar activities” as a taxable transaction). If that’s so, Jarrett realizes income when
he receives each token and owes tax on the income that year. See 26 U.S.C. § 61; Glenshaw
Glass Co., 348 U.S. at 431; 1 Mertens Law of Fed. Income Tax’n §§ 5.15, 20.3.

       Timing can be everything when it comes to income taxes. Normally delay in realization,
as in delay in death, benefits the taxpayer. Other times, value fluctuates, making Jarrett’s tax bill
turn on the value of a Tezos token at the time he realizes income. See 1 Mertens Law of Fed.
Income Tax’n § 5:20. Since its introduction in 2018, the value of a Tezos token has ranged from
seventy   cents    to   more    than   eight    dollars.      Tezos    Price   Chart,   CoinGecko,
https://tinyurl.com/4y325x8y (last visited Aug. 17, 2023).

       Jarrett’s 2019 tax return brought these issues to the fore. That year, his staking efforts
yielded 8,876 Tezos tokens. But he “did not sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of these tokens
during 2019.” R.51-1 ¶ 6. At the time, the IRS treated the tokens as realized income when he
produced them. He disagreed. But he also knew that federal law prevented him from contesting
 No. 22-6023                        Jarrett, et al. v. United States                        Page 3

his tax liability ahead of time. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7421, 7422. He had to pay the tax first and ask
the IRS for a refund later.

        He accordingly reported the tokens that he produced in 2019 as income on his joint tax
return with Jessica Jarrett, and he paid tax on them. He then asked the IRS for a refund of
$3,793, arguing that he had not realized income on the tokens. By statute, the IRS had six
months to respond. 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(1). When that time lapsed, Jarrett filed a refund lawsuit
in federal district court.

        A refund lawsuit permits a taxpayer to sue the government “for the recovery of any
internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.” 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). As amended, Jarrett’s lawsuit asked the district court for three forms of
relief: (1) a judgment that Jarrett was entitled to a refund for 2019; (2) costs and attorney’s fees;
and (3) a permanent injunction preventing the IRS “from treating tokens created by the Jarretts
as income.” R.61 at 8.

        The government reversed course. The Attorney General approved Jarrett’s “full refund”
request and directed the IRS “to schedule an overpayment.” R.51-3 at 2. The IRS subsequently
“issued a refund check” for $4,001.83, the amount Jarrett paid plus statutory interest. R.41-1 at
1. The IRS mailed the check and a “Notice of Adjustment,” which stated that the payment was
“made in accordance with the concession authorized in [the case].” R.51-2 at 2.

        Jarrett did not accept the victory. Preferring to litigate the case to judgment and claiming
a right to obtain an injunction against the IRS, he has “not cashed, and [does] not intend to cash,
this check, which remains in the possession of [his] counsel.” R.51-2 at 2.

        The government moved to dismiss the case, claiming that the full refund check ended the
dispute. The district court agreed and dismissed the case as moot.

                                                 II.

        Jarrett contends on appeal that his refund claim remains a live dispute. We review the
district court’s mootness ruling with fresh eyes, asking whether the party asserting mootness
 No. 22-6023                       Jarrett, et al. v. United States                        Page 4

adequately established it. See Memphis A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Hargett, 2 F.4th 548, 558
(6th Cir. 2021).

                                                A.

       Article III grants federal courts the “judicial power” to adjudicate only “Cases” or
“Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. To respect that “cradle-to-grave” limitation, federal
courts must ensure that a true dispute persists throughout the case. Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland
Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711, 713 (6th Cir. 2011). If adversity disappears or if a court may not
grant “any effectual relief,” the case becomes moot. Church of Scientology v. United States, 506
U.S. 9, 12 (1992). Federal courts lack power “to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of
litigants in the case before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). They may
resolve only “real and substantial controvers[ies] admitting of specific relief through a decree of
a conclusive character, as distinguished from an [advisory] opinion.” Id. (quotation omitted).

       Mootness arises when a plaintiff receives all the relief she requested or could receive in
the case. Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 92–94 (2009). Once whole, a plaintiff lacks a “personal
injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by
the requested [judicial] relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). She also lacks the
necessary “‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S.
472, 478 (1990) (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). When a plaintiff does
not stand to gain from a judicial decision, the decision enters the forbidden territory of advice.
Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895).

       When has a plaintiff received complete relief? A defendant’s “offer” of relief does not
make a plaintiff whole or deprive a court of jurisdiction. Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, 577 U.S.
153, 165 (2016). That’s because a defendant may revoke an offer or fail to follow through, and
because offers generally come with conditions and thus do not simply give the plaintiff
everything she asked for. Id. at 156, 165.

       Actual payment—a tender of the money due—differs. Tender occurs when a defendant
“ascertain[s] . . . the sum due” and produces it. Peugh v. Davis, 113 U.S. 542, 545 (1885). He
must hand over the full sum without stipulation or condition. See Poteete v. Cap. Eng’g, Inc.,
 No. 22-6023                       Jarrett, et al. v. United States                        Page 5

185 F.3d 804, 807 (7th Cir. 1999); cf. Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787–88 (7th
Cir. 2015). Such a tender gives the plaintiff all the relief she could receive, and as a result it
moots any claim for damages.

        Founding era practice recognized a similar distinction between offers and tenders. At
common law, “a ‘mere proposal or proposition’ to pay a claim was inadequate to end a case.”
Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 170 (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting A. Hunt, A Treatise on the
Law of Tender, and Bringing Money Into Court §§ 1–2, 3–4 (1903)). A tender, by contrast,
required the defendant to “actually deliver complete relief.”         Id.   In some instances, if a
defendant tendered “sufficient amends” before a plaintiff sued, the tender “bar[red] all actions,”
leaving no issue to be adjudged. 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *16; see 11 Geo. 2 c.19
§ XX (Eng. 1734). If a defendant tendered complete relief of “the full amount due” after a
lawsuit commenced, and the plaintiff agreed that the sum was “sufficient to satisfy his demand,”
that left only the issue of accrued costs. Raiford v. Governor, 29 Ala. 382, 384 (1856); see
Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 170–71 (Thomas, J., concurring) (same); 9 M. Bacon, A New
Abridgment of the Law 341–42, 345 (1846) (similar). Similar understandings held sway under
19th-century state statutes and practice. Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 171–72 (Thomas, J.,
concurring); Murray v. Windley, 29 N.C. 201, 202–03 (1847) (per curiam); Hunt, supra, § 481;
cf. id. § 522.

        The Supreme Court’s cases support the distinction. When a plaintiff receives nothing but
an offer, his claims remain live. See Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 165–66 (majority); Knox v.
Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 308 (2012) (an offer accompanied by
“caveats” did not produce mootness).       When a plaintiff receives the relief she requested,
however, “the cause of action has ceased to exist.” California v. San Pablo & T.R. Co., 149 U.S.
308, 313 (1893); see Little v. Bowers, 134 U.S. 547, 558 (1890); San Mateo Cnty. v. S. Pac. R.R.
Co., 116 U.S. 138, 141–42 (1885); see also Mills, 159 U.S. at 654–55 (collecting similar cases).

        Numerous lower court decisions say the same thing—that tender of complete relief moots
a claim for damages. See Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 909 F.3d 534, 542 (2d
Cir. 2018) (recognizing that mootness may arise when “a defendant surrenders . . . ‘complete
relief’” (quotation omitted)); Duncan v. Governor, 48 F.4th 195, 206 (3d Cir. 2022)
 No. 22-6023                       Jarrett, et al. v. United States                        Page 6

(acknowledging that “claims for cash can always be mooted swiftly with payment”); Chen v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating a “consistent” view that “a claim
becomes moot once the plaintiff actually receives [complete relief]” (emphasis omitted)); Russell
v. United States, 661 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (delivering a check mooted a claim for
damages); McDermott v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 70, 75 (2010) (same).

        This principle applies with equal force to tax refund lawsuits. See Lamb v. Comm’r, 390
F.2d 157, 158 (2d Cir. 1968) (per curiam) (tendering refund mooted the refund suit); A.A. Allen
Revivals, Inc. v. Campbell, 353 F.2d 89, 90 (5th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (same); Drs. Hill &
Thomas Co. v. United States, 392 F.2d 204, 205 (6th Cir. 1968) (per curiam) (same); Cole v.
Comm’r, 15 F.3d 1084, at *2 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table decision) (same); Cath. Answers,
Inc. v. United States, 438 F. App’x 640, 641 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (same); Christian Coal.
of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1187, 1192 (11th Cir. 2011) (same). The principle
may be particularly well suited for tax disputes. As in this case, many tax disputes concern a
single return about a closed year. Whether it is the government or the taxpayer, it sometimes
makes sense to require the objecting party to accept “yes” as the answer to such discrete and
finite lawsuits. In the end, a “plaintiff who seeks to invoke judicial power” must “stand to profit
in some personal interest.” Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 39 (1976). A
plaintiff who receives complete relief for a past injury, eliminating the risk that the plaintiff
leaves the dispute “emptyhanded,” Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 165, cannot show a continuing
interest in judicial process.

                                                B.

        Gauged by these standards, the IRS’s refund check mooted this case.

        Refund lawsuits exist for a single purpose: “the recovery of any internal-revenue tax
alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1); see
26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). The IRS satisfies its repayment obligation when it issues and mails a
refund check to the taxpayer for the full amount of the overpayment. See Your Ins. Needs
Agency Inc. v. United States, 274 F.3d 1001, 1006 (5th Cir. 2001); Drs. Hill & Thomas Co., 392
F.2d at 205.
 No. 22-6023                        Jarrett, et al. v. United States                      Page 7

         Jarrett received a full “recovery” for his refund claim for his 2019 taxes. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(a)(1). He sought $3,793 plus interest. The IRS gave him just that. It adjusted Jarrett’s
account to reflect that he overpaid. And it issued him a check for the full sum: $4,001.83. In
doing all of this, the government “concede[d]” Jarrett’s overpayment and his entitlement to the
refund. Appellee’s Br. 13; R.51-2 at 2 (noting the government’s “concession”).

         By issuing Jarrett a check for the overpayment plus interest, the IRS resolved Jarrett’s
claim and mooted the refund lawsuit. See A.A. Allen Revivals, Inc., 353 F.2d at 90 (concluding
that government’s tender of “the full amount of the taxes sought to be recovered, plus interest,”
mooted a refund lawsuit); Drs. Hill & Thomas Co., 392 F.2d at 205 (same); Lamb, 390 F.2d at
158 (same); Cole, 15 F.3d 1084, at *2 (same); Christian Coal., 662 F.3d at 1192 (same).

         What of the reality that Jarrett has not cashed the check? We see no reason that mootness
should turn on what a taxpayer does with a check any more than it should turn on whether he
burns a full cash payment on the spot. See Russell, 661 F.3d at 1375 (delivered check mooted a
damages claim even though the plaintiff “had not cashed it”); Lohmann v. United States, 154
Fed. Cl. 355, 363–64 (2021) (same); see also Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., 413 F.3d 1327,
1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding the point “irrelevant”). By law, the IRS pays the refund when it
mails the original check. See Your Ins. Needs Agency Inc., 274 F.3d at 1006 (holding that the
government “paid out the refunds . . . by mailing refund checks”); cf. 26 U.S.C. § 6611(b)(2)
(providing that the IRS’s obligation to pay interest ends with the refund check “whether or not
such refund check is accepted by the taxpayer after tender of such check to the taxpayer”). Even
the expiration of a check does not defeat payment. A taxpayer may seek a replacement check
from the Treasury Department. See 31 U.S.C. § 3702(c)(1).

         This approach to mootness, for what it’s worth, runs in both directions. Just as the IRS
may end a refund lawsuit by paying the refund, the taxpayer may end the IRS’s collection efforts
by paying what he owes. Neither one may spurn the other’s check as a mere “offer” to avoid
mootness. See Mills, 159 U.S. at 655; see also Appellee’s Br. 37 (“The rule also applies in
reverse . . . .”).
 No. 22-6023                         Jarrett, et al. v. United States                     Page 8

                                                  C.

       Jarrett’s main argument in response rests on an analogy to Campbell-Ewald. Jose Gomez
filed a putative class action after he received an unwanted text message from Campbell-Ewald.
577 U.S. at 157. The company offered Gomez $1,503 per message, the maximum amount he
could receive by statute. Id. at 158. Gomez refused the offer. Id. Relying on offer-and-
acceptance contract principles, the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted settlement offer did
not moot Gomez’s claim. Id. at 165–66.

       There are several material differences between Campbell-Ewald and this case.
Campbell-Ewald offered to pay Gomez. The IRS paid Jarrett. Offers differ from tenders, just as
words differ from deeds. As the Supreme Court has explained, a party’s statement that he “was
ready and willing to pay” counts for nothing when “he did not do so.” Peugh, 113 U.S. at 545.
Confirming the point, Campbell-Ewald refused to “decide whether the result would be different”
for actual payment. 577 U.S. at 166; see id. at 164 & n.5 (distinguishing cases where “the
plaintiffs had received full redress”).

       Campbell-Ewald also involved a putative class action, which poses unique complications.
In that setting, complete relief (say incentive payments for lead plaintiffs) may exceed the value
of a lead plaintiff’s damages claim. See Geismann, 909 F.3d at 543. Some courts worry about
the risk that defendants will “pick off” the lead plaintiff to deny relief to the remainder of the
class, prompting them to apply “special mootness rules” to collective litigation.        Duncan,
48 F.4th at 204–06 (applying “picking-off exception” (quotation omitted)); see also Geismann,
909 F.3d at 543; Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2017).
However sensible these mootness exceptions for class litigation may be, there is no comparable
reason to depart from the usual rule that a full tender by a solvent defendant moots a damages
claim in run-of-the-mine cases.

       Campbell-Ewald’s contract analysis also lacks force in a refund setting. Jarrett claims
that the government’s refund check constitutes an offer that he may reject, just as Gomez could
reject Campbell-Ewald’s settlement offer. But that assumes away the possibility of a full tender
of payment, unaccompanied by any conditions.              Even in a world limited to offers and
 No. 22-6023                        Jarrett, et al. v. United States                       Page 9

acceptances, it seems more apt to characterize Jarrett’s request for a refund as an offer that the
government accepted by mailing a check.

       Jarrett adds that the government has not admitted liability or agreed to an entry of a
judgment. But that is not the measure of mootness. It arises even though the parties “continue to
dispute the lawfulness of the conduct that precipitated the lawsuit.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,
568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013). At any rate, when the IRS issued Jarrett a Notice of Adjustment, it said
that the check flowed from the government’s “concession” in the case. R.51-2 at 2. The
government’s appellate brief takes up the theme, repeating four times that it “concede[d]
[Jarrett]’s entitlement” to a tax refund. Appellee’s Br. 13. Aside from that, the reality that the
government labeled Jarrett’s return an “overpayment” and refunded the money serves as its own
precedent. R.51-3 at 2. Sure, the IRS could litigate the issue in another tax year. But mootness
in the context of retrospective money-damages claims does not require the government to cede
the issue for all future years. One reasonable explanation for mooting a case is a party’s partial,
but not finally resolved, doubt about a litigation position.

       Jarrett warns that the government could mail refund checks strategically, mooting refund
suits whenever it wishes for all kinds of reasons. Giving a citizen everything he wants in an
individual lawsuit may stem from a governmental strategy, but it is not the kind of strategy that
usually raises concerns about governmental abuse, whether with respect to property or liberty.
That’s what it means to “unilaterally moot” a case, and courts have permitted it in the face of
similar arguments about strategic tenders of full relief.        Already, LLC, 568 U.S. at 98–99
(rejecting a similar argument). The reality that the government must pay the full refund (plus
interest) to achieve mootness, and do so in the context of a lawsuit generating a published
opinion about the government’s concession, makes any gameplaying far from cost free.

       A recent IRS revenue ruling on cryptocurrency staking does not change matters. The
ruling formalizes the Service’s long-tentative view that new tokens arising from staking
constitute income when the taxpayer receives them.             See Rev. Rul. 2023-14, supra, at 5.
Releasing this “official interpretation” for the “guidance of taxpayers” may suggest that the
government will not issue similar refunds going forward. 26 C.F.R. § 601.201(a)(6) (describing
revenue rulings). But whatever it portends for future tax years, the ruling has no bearing on
 No. 22-6023                         Jarrett, et al. v. United States                           Page 10

Jarrett’s 2019 taxes. The government conceded Jarrett’s overpayment for that year and issued
him a refund, terminating any controversy as to 2019.

        Jarrett separately worries that the IRS could bring a civil lawsuit against him to recover
the check as erroneously refunded.          See 26 U.S.C. § 7405.           But the government “has
unequivocally stated” that it “cannot (and will not)” do that. R.42 at 10. “[H]aving taken [this]
position in court,” the government “would be hard pressed to assert the contrary down the road.”
Already, LLC, 568 U.S. at 94; see DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 317 (1974) (per curiam)
(noting “the settled practice of the Court . . . fully to accept representations such as these”).

        Jarrett cites several cases in which a defendant’s tender of a check did not moot the
dispute. But the defendant in many of these cases turned the check over to the district court, not
the plaintiff. See Geismann, 909 F.3d at 541 (depositing funds under Civil Rule 67); Fulton
Dental, 860 F.3d at 546 (same); Conrad v. Boiron, Inc., 869 F.3d 536, 539, 541–42 (7th Cir.
2017) (same); Hotel Conquistador, Inc. v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 20, 33 (1979) (same). Such
a deposit still means the district court must resolve some component of the case, usually through
a settlement, and thus still runs the risk of leaving the plaintiff emptyhanded. See Geismann, 909
F.3d at 541–42. Many of these cases also involve class actions, a reality that sometimes alters
the usual rules of litigation. See Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. ACT, Inc., 12 F.4th 81, 94–95
(1st Cir. 2021) (class action); Geismann, 909 F.3d at 541 (same); Fulton Dental, 860 F.3d at 546
(same); Conrad, 869 F.3d at 539, 542 (same).

        Jarrett insists that, if the shoe were on the other foot, the government could refuse a
taxpayer’s check and avoid mooting the lawsuit. In making this argument, Jarrett invokes a
section from the Justice Department’s Manual that deals with “settlement offer[s]” involving a
“proposed    basis      of   compromise.”       Justice   Manual        §§ 6-6.400,   6-6.421    (2018),
https://perma.cc/YDX2-7FT3. That section does not describe the Department’s response to full
and unconditional payment. In its brief and at oral argument, the government explained that full,
unconditional payment moots a tax-liability dispute, regardless of whether it comes from the
taxpayer or from the government.            Oral Arg. at 24:32-35 (describing the “symmetric”
relationship). Anything less constitutes a settlement offer that the government (and any other
litigant) may reject.
 No. 22-6023                       Jarrett, et al. v. United States                        Page 11

       Jarrett adds that his costs and attorney’s fees establish that the refund check did not give
him complete monetary relief. An interest in litigation costs alone, however, does not sustain
Article III jurisdiction. Lewis, 494 U.S. at 480. A dismissal on mootness grounds would not
prevent Jarrett from seeking costs or attorney’s fees in any event. See, e.g., Heitmuller v. Stokes,
256 U.S. 359, 361–62 (1921) (imposing costs after finding the case moot); Roberts v. Neace, 65
F.4th 280, 283 (6th Cir. 2023) (affirming an award of attorney’s fees and costs issued under 42
U.S.C. § 1988 following a dismissal for mootness).

       A defendant’s check, we appreciate, may not moot a case if the evidence shows that the
defendant will not be good for the money. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs.
(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000); Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 185–86 (Alito, J.,
dissenting) (discussing offers from defendants with “shaky” finances or who have “no intention
of actually paying”). But Jarrett does not claim that the United States Treasury, in debt though it
may be, lacks the resources to honor this $4,001.83 check.

                                                III.

       Jarrett argues that his alternative requests for relief prevent mootness. In addition to a tax
refund for 2019, Jarrett’s complaint asked for a judgment and a permanent injunction.

       Neither of these requests suffices to avoid mootness in a tax refund lawsuit. Refund
lawsuits, as the name suggests and statutes confirm, operate retrospectively. They determine the
propriety of a previously assessed and previously paid tax, not future tax years. 26 U.S.C.
§ 7422; 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). Two statutes reinforce the point. Congress has deprived “any
court” of the power to “restrain[] the assessment or collection of any tax” for “any person.” 26
U.S.C. § 7421(a); see id. (listing exceptions irrelevant here); Enochs v. Williams Packing &
Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962) (same). Although Congress has empowered federal courts
to issue declaratory judgments, it has prohibited them from doing so in lawsuits “with respect to
Federal taxes.”    28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).       Taken together, these provisions “protect[] the
Government’s ability to collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation to enjoin or
otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes.” NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 543 (2012).
 No. 22-6023                        Jarrett, et al. v. United States                     Page 12

       Jarrett’s non-monetary requests for relief are inconsistent with these limitations. He
requested “[a] permanent injunction against the Internal Revenue Service, preventing it from
treating tokens created by the Jarretts as income.” R.61 at 8. That request seeks to “restrain[]
the assessment or collection” of taxes in future years, something the district court could not do.
26 U.S.C. § 7421(a); see CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, 141 S. Ct. 1582, 1593–94 (2021). And “[a]
judgment that the disputed federal income taxes were erroneously assessed” cannot help Jarrett
for his 2019 taxes because he has received the refund, R.61 at 8, eliminating any “actual
controversy” as to 2019, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Yes, a judgment today might help him in future
tax years.   But a good-for-tomorrow-only judgment would transgress the statutory ban on
declaratory judgments in tax cases.

       Jarrett counters that a court may award prospective relief in a refund lawsuit so long as it
is ancillary to the refund claim. For support, he primarily relies on dicta and footnotes. See Bob
Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 748 n.22 (1974); Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717, 740
& nn.5–6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting); see also IRS Manual
§ 34.5.2.1(2) (2004), https://tinyurl.com/3duspn7w (explaining that a taxpayer in a refund
lawsuit may request “[b]oth a refund of tax and other relief, such as an injunction against the
collection of similar tax in the future”). Taken on their own terms, these sources suggest only
that prospective relief is not categorically inappropriate.      Other dicta, for what it’s worth,
suggests that prospective relief is never available. See Cohen, 650 F.3d at 732 (majority); King
v. Burwell, 759 F.3d 358, 367 (4th Cir. 2014), aff’d, 576 U.S. 473 (2015); see also Marvel v.
United States, 548 F.2d 295, 300 (10th Cir. 1977) (refusing to recognize “a new judicial
exception to the applicability of the [Anti-Injunction] Act in suits for refund”).

       More to the point today, the question is not whether a court may award prospective relief
alongside a refund request. It is whether prospective relief alone may sustain a refund case after
the refund claim itself drops out. The only circuit to answer this question disagreed with Jarrett.
Christian Coal., 662 F.3d at 1192 (“Absent a live refund claim,” a court lacks “jurisdiction to
entertain a suit containing solely forward-looking claims seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief from the IRS.”).
 No. 22-6023                       Jarrett, et al. v. United States                      Page 13

       South Carolina v. Regan does not fill this gap. It holds only that § 7421(a)’s bar does not
apply when Congress has failed to provide “an alternative remedy.” 465 U.S. 367, 381 (1984).
But in this instance Congress has provided a remedial process (refund suits) and Jarrett has
received the remedy (a refund).

       In a similar vein, Jarrett urges us to apply a mootness exception for issues that are
“capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998). Whether
the IRS can tax cryptocurrency at creation, it is true, might well arise again. But it also might
not. Jarrett has not filed refund claims for 2020, 2021, or 2022, and the government represents
that the IRS has “no open examination [or] deficiency proceedings” concerning Jarrett’s taxes
for these years. Oral Arg. at 17:50-18:26. Neither party, moreover, has identified any other case
in which another taxpayer raises this tax liability issue. Regardless, the reality that a tax issue
may arise again does not give courts license to prospectively “restrain[] the assessment or
collection” of a tax. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Even on its own terms, this
mootness exception fits poorly here because there is nothing about tax refund disputes that
makes their resolution “so short as to evade review.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 18; Christian Coal.,
662 F.3d at 1195–96. Plus, Jarrett has not identified any “pattern” of government attempts to
avoid review of this issue. Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir.
2002) (acting to moot eight cases revealed a pattern).

       Church of Scientology of Hawaii v. United States does not help Jarrett on this score. 485
F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1973). The Ninth Circuit held that a check did not moot a refund suit
implicating a church’s tax-exempt status because leaving the status unresolved would result in
“adverse collateral consequences” aside from future tax liability. Id. at 317. Jarrett does not
point to any similar consequences here.

       We affirm.