United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, et al. v. Andre M. Toffel, as Chapter 7 Trustee for Walter Energy Inc., et al.

In the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit held that the tax Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)) does not withdraw jurisdiction over a debtor’s effort to use Section 1114(g) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 1114(g)) to restrain the assessment of “premiums” for the Combined Fund and for the 1992 Plan, two healthcare benefit plans created under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (“Coal Act”) (26 U.S.C. ch. 99). The Eleventh Circuit’s decision warrants further review. Its holding that a court may restrain the assessment of Combined Fund premiums deepens a circuit split over the scope of an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act created and applied by the Court in South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). And its holding that 1992 Plan premiums are not “any tax” protected by the Anti-Injunction Act opens a 3–1 split. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the South Carolina v. Regan exception to the Anti-Injunction Act applies only in this Court and, if not, whether it applies only to litigants challenging the validity of a tax.

2. Whether 1992 Plan premiums are “any tax” for purposes of federal statutes like the Anti-Injunction Act.