Ruesch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 25 F.4th 67

In 2018 the IRS assessed Vivian Ruesch $160,000 in civil penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6038 for failing to file information about foreign entities; she did not pay.
In December 2018 the IRS certified Ruesch as having a "seriously delinquent tax debt" under 26 U.S.C. § 7345, exposing her to potential passport denial, revocation, or limitation.
Ruesch petitioned the U.S. Tax Court (April 2019) challenging both the § 7345 certification and the underlying penalties; the IRS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
While the Tax Court case was pending, the IRS discovered Ruesch had requested a due-process hearing in October 2018 (misplaced administratively), which, by statute, precludes certification; the IRS reversed the § 7345 certification and notified the State Department.
The Tax Court dismissed parts of Ruesch’s petition as moot and dismissed other parts for lack of statutory jurisdiction to redetermine underlying liability; Ruesch appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the passport-related claims as moot, and vacated/remanded the jurisdictional dismissals with instructions to dismiss the remaining claims as moot as well.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ruesch’s passport-related claims challenging the § 7345 certification are moot after the IRS reversed the certification	Ruesch argued the voluntary-cessation doctrine keeps the dispute live because the IRS could re-certify in the future	IRS argued reversal and notification to State Dept. eradicated the injury and statute already limits recertification while an appeal is pending	Held: Moot. Reversal and notice eradicated the effect; no reasonable expectation of recurrence given statutory limits on recertification.
Whether the Tax Court has statutory jurisdiction under § 7345 to redetermine Ruesch’s underlying tax liability	Ruesch sought judicial review of the underlying penalties as part of challenging the certification	IRS argued § 7345 authorizes only review of the certification decision, not redetermination of underlying liability	Held: Tax Court should have dismissed any remaining claims as moot (not for lack of statutory jurisdiction) because § 7345 provides only limited relief and Ruesch already obtained that relief.
Whether the Tax Court erred by resolving statutory-jurisdiction before mootness (Article III) questions	Ruesch contended the court should resolve jurisdictional scope	IRS implied statutory interpretation was appropriate	Held: Court should decide mootness (Article III antecedent) before addressing statutory jurisdiction; here mootness disposed of remaining claims.

Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 1994) (mootness and the continuing interest requirement for litigation)
Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 909 F.3d 534 (2d Cir. 2018) (no live controversy when a plaintiff obtained all relief available through litigation)
Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982) (principle that mootness arises when issues are no longer live)
Connecticut Citizens Def. League, Inc. v. Lamont, 6 F.4th 439 (2d Cir. 2021) (voluntary-cessation doctrine and its two-part test)
Freytag v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (Tax Court is an Article I court and related jurisdictional context)