Following up on my prior posts on the debate between Stephen B. Cohen (Georgetown) and Douglas A. Kahn (Michigan):

• Cohen, Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Tax Opinions, 124 Tax Notes 474 (Aug. 3, 2009)
• Kahn, Rudkin Testamentary Trust — A Response to Prof. Cohen, 124 Tax Notes 1263 (Sept. 21, 2009)
• Cohen, Whom Do You Trust? A Reply to Prof. Kahn Concerning the Knight Case, Also Known as Rudkin Trust, 125 Tax Notes 711 (Nov. 9, 2009)
• Kahn, It Is Logic Rather Than Whom You Trust: A Rejoinder to Prof. Cohen, 126 Tax Notes 372 (Jan. 18, 2010)

Stephen has just fired the fifth volley in the exchange, The Misuse of Textualism: A Further Reply to Prof. Kahn, 127 Tax Notes ___ (May 2010). Here is the abstract:

Because readers have already endured four articles, two by me and two by Prof. Douglas A. Kahn, debating the meaning of § 67(e)(1), I am reluctant to respond to Prof. Kahn’s rejoinder, which appeared in the January 18 issue of Tax Notes. Nevertheless, our disagreement implicates the judicial craft of two U.S. Supreme Court members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. I therefore feel it important to answer Prof. Kahn’s latest contentions, recognizing my duty to be as brief as possible.