Whether a U.S. court of appeals can decline to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent on user fees, and instead apply its own test

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether a U.S. court of appeals can explicitly decline to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring a voluntary act and a “special benefit” for an agency to charge a user fee, and instead apply its own threepronged test to determine whether user fees can be charged annually under 31 U.S.C. § 9701 to a class of approximately 1,500,000 tax return preparers with respect to registration and re-registration of a permanent identification number used by the Internal Revenue Service? II. Under SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947), when the administrative record clearly shows the grounds for an agency’s charging of user fees via seven (7) separate clear consistent statements and the lawfulness of those grounds is invalidated by a U.S court of appeals, can the agency’s simple mention of a potential favorable byproduct in a related regulation supply the basis for the same court of appeals to uphold agency action? To Petitioners’ knowledge, these issues have not been previously addressed by any U.S. district court or U.S. court of appeals. ii PARTIES Brittany Montrois is a Georgia Certified Public Accountant (CPA) who prepares tax returns and refund claims for her clients. Adam Steele is a Minnesota CPA who prepares tax returns and refund claims for his clients. Joseph Henchman is an attorney who resides in the District of Columbia. He occasionally prepares tax returns for others. They were appellees below. A class of over 700,000 tax return preparers was certified by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 8, 2016. However, based on information published by the Internal Revenue Service provided in