ACA Legal Challange

[Christian]

A new article in the WSJ by the Attorney General in Oklahoma details the developing legal challange to the ACA by Oklahoma, Indiana, and others to the IRS accessing penalties in states served by a federal exchange. This will bear watching I would guess.

[Guest Taxed]

I think it has been pretty well documented that under current ACA legislation IRS can not enforce any mandate penalties except for grabbing any refunds due to a taxpayer. So if you change your status to a balance due taxpayer you will not have to worry until a refund is due.

[easytax]

Anyone heard whether --- when you finally get a refund --- whether the fed's will take all years due (ACA penalties --- sorry --- taxes)? If you owe the non-insurance penalty (eerr tax) for 2014 and 2015 and finally mess-up and get a refund in 2016, will they only take the current year or will they take all the prior years too?

[Guest Taxed]

Interesting question. Further research needed!

[Christian]

The fact that the Service can only get a penalty from a taxpayers refund is an interesting point. That being so a taxpayer owing tax need only deduct the penalty from tax due and the Service has no further enforcement powers. I assume that as practitioners we are strictly enjoined from enlightening a client regarding this. :}

[Pacun]

I think you pay the penalty first and then taxes or the IRS prorates it.

[Lion EA]

I am my clients' advocate. I inform my clients how to reduce their tax liabilities to their lowest LEGAL limit. It is my job to inform my clients. It is never my job to keep secrets for the IRS.

[Mr. Pencil]

A new article in the WSJ by the Attorney General in Oklahoma details the developing legal challange to the ACA by Oklahoma, Indiana, and others to the IRS accessing penalties in states served by a federal exchange.

Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the employer mandate on religious grounds. ACA is such a sweeping change, there is sure to be some adjustments in the courts and legislature. But so far the basic structure has stood up against Constitutional challenges.

[Guest Taxed]

I want the Supreme Court to put this issue to bed once for all so that we can move along and not waste valuable time!

In my opinion as a Employer's religious beliefs does NOT extend to medical decisions of their employee's under an insurance plan.

They are NOT directly paying for the services they object. They are paying premiums that fund an insurance reserve to pay for medical services .

If we go down this slippery slope, what is next? Employers objecting to pay taxes because it funds wars that kill people? A pharmacist refusing to dispense certain medicine because they don't agree with it?

If you believe your religion is going to hinder you to do certain type of work, find another profession! How about a tax preparer??