Michael H. Holland, as Trustee for the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and United Mine Workers of America 1992 Benefit Plan, et al. v. Westmoreland Coal Company, et al.

In the decision below, the Fifth 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 two benefit plans created under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (“Coal Act”) (26 U.S.C. ch. 99). The Fifth Circuit’s decision warrants further review. Its holding that a bankruptcy court may exercise discretion to restrain the assessment of Coal Act premiums deepens a circuit split over the scope of the exception to the Anti-Injunction Act created by South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). And its holding that Coal Act premiums are not “any tax” protected by the Anti-Injunction Act deepens another split. The questions presented are:

1. Is the South Carolina v. Regan exception to the Anti-Injunction Act available to debtors who want to avoid paying a tax for reasons unrelated to the tax’s validity?

2. Are Coal Act premiums “any tax” protected by the Anti-Injunction Act?