In the case of United States et al. v. Rylander et al., 1982, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an IRS summons for tax records that Richard Rylander claimed he could not produce due to loss or destruction. The court held that it was not enough for Rylander to simply claim inability; rather, he had to provide evidence supporting his claim in order to avoid contempt charges for failing to comply with the court's enforcement of the summons. The burden of proof fell on him because it was within his control and knowledge whether such documents existed and were available. Therefore, if a taxpayer wishes to oppose enforcement of an IRS summons on grounds they cannot comply with its demands, they must present factual support for their contention or face penalties.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rylander, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision placed an unfair burden on defendants who claimed they were unable to comply with a court order due to circumstances beyond their control. He contended that it was unreasonable and unjust to require such defendants to prove their inability conclusively at a contempt hearing or face penalties. Instead, he suggested that once a defendant presents evidence of his inability, the government should have some responsibility in proving otherwise before sanctions can be imposed. This shift would ensure fairness by balancing burdens of proof between both parties involved in litigation.