Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, 86 F.4th 1159

In 2007 the IRS issued Notice 2007-83 identifying certain cash-value life-insurance employee-benefit plans as "listed transactions."
In 2013 Mann Construction created trusts (for Wood and Coughlin) paying premiums; the taxpayers did not report the trusts as listed transactions.
In 2019 the IRS assessed penalties for failure to report (Mann: $10,000; Wood: $8,642; Coughlin: $7,794); the taxpayers paid the 2013 penalties and sought administrative refunds, then sued under 26 U.S.C. § 7422 and the APA.
The district court dismissed most claims; the Sixth Circuit held Notice 2007-83 was a legislative rule that violated the APA and directed that the Notice be set aside on the merits (Mann Constr., Inc. v. United States).
On remand the IRS refunded the paid penalties with interest, abated unpaid penalties, and announced it would not apply the Notice to these taxpayers (and later declined to apply it within the Sixth Circuit); the district court nevertheless invalidated the Notice nationwide.
The government appealed; the Sixth Circuit held the dispute was moot and vacated the district court’s nationwide judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of refund claim	Mann: refund claim remains because they seek relief beyond the payment or contest broader IRS policy	Govt: full refund with interest and abatement of future penalties moots refund claim	Moot: payment of full past penalties with interest eliminated live controversy on refund claim
Ability to obtain APA injunctive/declaratory relief after refund	Mann: APA independently permits setting aside Notice to prevent future enforcement against them	Govt: its voluntary refund and promise not to apply the Notice to these taxpayers (and within the Sixth Circuit) moots APA claim	Moot: voluntary cessation and nonenforcement for these taxpayers deprived courts of jurisdiction over their APA claim
Court authority to enter nationwide vacatur	Mann: nationwide relief is necessary to prevent inconsistent enforcement across circuits	Govt: no live controversy supporting nationwide relief for these plaintiffs after mooting acts	Held: district court lacked jurisdiction to issue nationwide vacatur; case must be dismissed as moot

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (standing requires a personal stake and redressability)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (redressability is an Article III requirement)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (voluntary cessation can moot a case if defendant shows cessation is permanent)
Jarrett v. United States, 79 F.4th 675 (6th Cir. 2023) (tax-refund suits become moot when IRS returns full amount with interest)
CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, 141 S. Ct. 1582 (2021) (APA can provide injunctive/declaratory relief against agency rules affecting taxpayers)
Mann Constr., Inc. v. United States, 27 F.4th 1138 (6th Cir. 2022) (prior panel held Notice 2007-83 violated the APA)