Final answer:
It is true that courts may rule against a taxpayer even if precedent supports their position, as interpretations can change with societal values, court composition, and judicial philosophies.
Step-by-step explanation:
It is true that even if all the judicial precedent supports a taxpayer's position, the court still may hold against the taxpayer.
Judicial decisions rely on precedent but can also involve the interpretation of law in light of new circumstances and policy perspectives.
While the doctrine of stare decisis emphasizes the importance of precedent in striving for consistency and stability in the law, courts also have the flexibility to adapt legal interpretations as societal values and legal philosophies evolve.
The composition of a court can also influence judicial decisions, as evidenced by landmark shifts such as from Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education.
Furthermore, justices may interpret precedent to align with their own preferred outcomes or to justify new policy choices, which adds another layer of complexity and potential variability to judicial rulings.