# Unite d States Court of Appe als

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I R C U I T



## No. 22-5341 September Term, 2023 F I L E D O N : A P R

I L 19, 2024

M O N TE S I L

V E R A N D M O N TE S I L

V E R , L TD ., A P P E L L A N TS

v.
I N TE R N A L R E V E

N U E S E R V I C E , E T A L ., A P P E L L E E S

Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Columbia (No. 1:20-c v-01544)

Be fore : M I L L E TT and P A N , Circuit Judges , and R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit Judge

. J U D G M E N T
This appea l was considere d on the rec ord from the district co u rt and on the briefs and arg uments of the parties. The Court has a ffor ded the issues full conside ration and ha s determined that they do not warr ant a published opinion. See D.C. C I R

. R. 36(d). I t is
ORDERED t h at the district court’s judgme nt be VACATED and that the case be REMAND ED to the district court for further proce eding s consistent with the rea sons stated below.
* * *

M o n t e S ilver, a United States citizen residing in I srae l, is the sole share holder and officer of his I srae li law firm—a “one- person” I srae li c orpora tion, Monte Silver, L imited. Mr. Silver and his corpor ation have mounted repe ated leg al challeng es to various United States tax rules. See Silver
v. IRS , No. 21-5116, 2022 WL 17420308 (D.C. Cir. Dec

. 6, 2022); Silver v. United States , No. 23- 5049, 2023 WL 8724220 (D.C. Cir. Dec

. 19, 2023). Her e, t h ey cl ai m that the I nterna l Revenue Service and the De p artment of the Trea sury failed to comply with the Reg ulatory Flexibili ty Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq ., when promulg ating reg ulations to implement the taxation of g lobal intang ible low-taxed income. Gui d an ce R el ated to Section 951A, 84 Fe d. Reg 29,288 (June 21, 2019) (implementing 26 U.S.C. § 951A and scatter ed sec tions of 26 U.S.C.).
The dis t ri ct co u rt dismiss ed the suit at the pleading stag e for lack of subject-matterjurisdiction unde r the Anti-I njunction Act. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) ; Cohen v. United States , 650 F.3d

717, 724 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (e n banc)

. Plaintiffs had objected befor e the district court that the Anti-I njunction Act did not apply in light of South Carolina v. R eg a n , 4 6 5 U. S

. 367 (1984), beca use they had no other way to litigate their cl ai ms. The defe ndants arg ued that the Act barr ed the suit without exception. The district court, in its Memorandum Opinion, did not addre ss these contentions. On appea l, plaintiffs rene w their South Carolina arg ument. Def endants respond with an arg ument differ ing somewhat from their prese ntation to the district court. That South Carolina arg ument may require fac tual development.

We there fore vaca

te and rema

nd the case fo r further proce eding s consistent with this judgme nt, which al s o m ay encompa ss additional issues bey ond those prese nted i n this appea l. I n s o ruling , we express no opinion on whether the Anti-I njunction Act would apply reg ardle ss o f South Caroli na v. Re

gan
. * * *

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this dispositi on will not be published. The Clerk is direc ted to withhold issuance of the mandate until seven day s afte r resolution of any timely petition for r ehea ring or re hear ing en banc

. See F E D

. R. A P P

. P. 41(b); D.C. C I R

. R. 41(a) (1).

P er C uriam

F OR THE COURT:

Mark J. L ang er, Cler

k

BY : /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

2