« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

WH: Individual mandate now a tax.

Democrats, administration apologists hardest hit.

Democrats, administration apologists hardest hit.

(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) If you are surprised at this… [deep breath] well. You should not be.

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

[snip]

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

The individual mandate is a tax.  It has always been a tax, denials of the administration to the contrary.  And, as the article makes clear, the administration is now going to enthusiastically call it a tax in order to keep it from being thrown out as blatantly unconstitutional.  You see, the Commerce Clause argument falls down when you put too much pressure on it:

To assess the constitutionality of a claim of power under the Commerce Clause, the primary question becomes, “what class of activity is Congress seeking to regulate?” Only when this question is answered can the Court assess whether that class of activity substantially affects interstate commerce. Significantly, the mandate imposed by the pending bills does not regulate or prohibit the economic activity of providing or administering health insurance. Nor does it regulate or prohibit the economic activity of providing health care, whether by doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, or other entities engaged in the business of providing a medical good or service. Indeed, the health care mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate” inactivity.

Proponents of the individual mandate are contending that, under its power to “regulate commerce…among the several states,” Congress may regulate the doing of nothing at all! In other words, the statute purports to convert inactivity into a class of activity. By its own plain terms, the individual mandate provision regulates the absence of action. To uphold this power under its existing doctrine, the Court must conclude that an individual’s failure to enter into a contract for health insurance is an activity that is “economic” in nature– that is, it is part of a “class of activity” that “substantially affects interstate commerce.”

Never in this nation’s history has the commerce power been used to require a person who does nothing to engage in economic activity.

But you can’t challenge a tax that way – so it’s a tax, now.  Which means, by the way, that when the President promised not to raise taxes:

…he lied. And he thinks that the American people will swallow that lie, because he and his party’s leadership cadre all think that the American people are stupid.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

COMMENTS

  • Deskpilot

    to the widest audience possible.
    The nay-sayers, the Obamabots, throughout the urban radio hip-hop market, HUFFPO, and everywhere in between.
    This card of a president of a fool, and has played Americans like fools.

    Every member of Congress who voted for this tax hike needs to be called on the carpet to answer to their constituents.

    I expect that I would hear fewer crickets chirping out on a weekend camping trip.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    the American people are stupid – at least the ones who voted for BOzo, anyway. And watch. They’ll be the ones who holler the loudest when all the bull-oney in this atrocious piece of legislation goes into effect!

  • redneck_hippie

    that they would be challenged constitutionally, and that they would then have to claim the mandate was a tax. It’s how FDR preserved a certain thing he wanted and that became a legend in lockbox history. The powers were, it seems, extraordinarily reluctant to have to come out of the closet on the insurance/tax issue.

    Also, I believe I read in Men in Black that the article quoted is not quite correct in the last para above. A farmer was involved in a case because the government was using the commerce clause to force him to plant crops because it would affect interstate commerce if he did not plant said crops. I don’t have a copy of Men in Black to cite the case(s).

    Both of these things have been done before. Recategorizing a so-called insurance program to suddenly and unexpectedly become a tax to avoid constitutional challenge in the 1930s. Also abusing the commerce clause to force a citizen to do something because to not do something affected interstate commerce.

  • redneck_hippie

    about the case of the farmer. The case was to prevent the farmer from growing an additional crop for his own use because to do so would affect interstate commerce. I think the reasoning was that the farmer, by not selling his additional crop, would therefore affect interstate commerce. He was not allowed to grow additional crops for use on his own farm property.

  • merryj1

    I could be citing the wrong case, Redneck (I didn’t read “Men in Black”), but if it’s the Commerce Clause case I think you’re referring to, the farmer did plant a small amount of wheat for his own personal use (his wife used it to bake her locally-famous bread, enough for their own use and some local non-commercial — “gift” — distribution). The Department of Agriculture went after the farmer for an alleged ‘negative impact’ on prices (“commerce”), and the Court upheld the government’s idiotic claim that the tiny bit of personal wheat the farmer planted could somehow lower the price of wheat distributed through interstate commerce.

  • merryj1

    You posted your own correction at the same time. Sorry, my bad.

  • redneck_hippie

    I’m the one who should be apologizing, for not looking the facts up first, myself. I plead the obvious defense, that IANAL.

    Anyway, the main point is that the commerce clause has been so abused and trampled on. Would the founders have wanted to force a farmer to burn his crop in order that some stupid bureaucrat could satisfy his bogus price-fixing rules?

  • kowalski

    Everyone who lives in Massachusetts knew it was a tax. George Stephanopoulos knew it was a tax. Professors from Yale University speaking to Progressive lawyers knew it was a tax. The people who wrote the bill knew it was a tax.

    The states that have lawsuits against it knew it would eventually have to become a tax, even if they didn’t want to mention the tax-like qualities of it. People who supported it knew it amounted to a tax. The IRS sure as hell knows it’s a tax. All these people read the bill.

    It’s a tax.

    But the President of the United States got up in front of the American people and “reject[ed] the notion…” that it was a tax, to their faces. He must not talk to anyone while he’s golfing. Does he ever talk to anyone except himself when he looks in the mirror in the morning?

  • kowalski

    It’s a BOLD FACED lie. We’ve reached the point in this country where we can pass the most sweeping bill in history on the basis of a BOLD FACED LIE told by the President. And he was advised to say that by his handler, David Axelrod. That’s pretty freakin’ scary.

  • David123

    Barrack Obama was elected because he PROMISED not to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000/year.

  • rdelbov

    folks that taxes are collected by the IRS-in most cases on the federal level for the individual that is-and you will have to report your insurance premiums/proof of insurances on your tax returns.

    Please also keep in mind that failure to report information to the IRS is some sort of Federal crime right?

    You have been warned.

  • redneck_hippie
  • redelephant86

    Even with this and everybody’s income taxes going up with the Bush tax cuts being allowed to sunset, and true unemployment around 15% with no end in sight, the same drones that voted this guy in will do the same thing in 2012. These people don’t vote their pocketbooks anymore…

  • fotophun

    of course will not be put in the same category as the citizens of this country that hand out their paychecks
    they are exempt from the insurance the rest of us HAVE to use
    what elitists!!!

  • Achance
  • dvdmsr

    How is a tax for doing nothing not a capitation?

    Capitations must be proportionately collected amoung the States, and since Obamacare doesn’t provide for such collection it seems to me tthat this mandate/tax is unconstitutional for that reason.

  • thelibrul

    With the court shrinking the commerce power and with the mandate certainly taking the commerce clause further than ever, the best constitutional argument is under the tax clause, which holds that all a tax needs to be i order to meet constitutional muster is to raise revenue. That’s also why they gave the IRS sole authority over collecting the mandate (or collecting from those who don’t meet the mandate).

  • BlueStateSaint

    The Obamessiah got a lot of the “moderate” voters–the ones that tend to decide these big elections. A lot of them are disillusioned with the Oministration, too. They may try to make their anger known here this fall. A lot of them will continue to be upset when they go to the voting booth in 2012.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Now I think the farmer mandate is a HUUUGE stretch, and should be overturned, if the opportunity ever availed itself. But this is an even bigger stretch. The ordinary citizen is engaged in economic activity merely by breathing.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Thus, will previous statements by Democrat congress-members and the President regarding whether this is a tax be directly relevant?

  • bobojake

    I can see NOV from my House and obama and the obama crats are going to pay dearly with the biggest politicall ash kickin. They have had it coming for over 40 years.
    Kennedy and Byrd is no where to protect their LIES

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    No. No, no. Hold on. Hold on.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax.html

    I hope someone will question both Gibbs on Monday morning regarding this, and Obama on the next time he condescends to take questions from the media.

  • Wine Country Dog

    and will always be so. If they tell the truth about what they want they will never get elected. As I read through some of the articles posted at RCP from various websites I very often see a lefty commenter recommending lying to the public to ensure passage of a particularly repugnant piece of legislation (the health and finance deform bills). To them, lying is a way of life, just like their adjustable realities and standards. They feel no sense of guilt or shame even when the lie is called out.

    Example: recently Reid said that no illegal immigrants have taken away jobs in the construction industry in Nevada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzFfK5B6kLg and many other websites. 24 hours later, all you hear about Reid’s statement are crickets. This is another of many big drums that should be banged on every day that harry, steny, pelouse and all the other lefties are in office, along with proof they are lying.

    It seems to me that lately we are being besieged on all fronts by Big Lies and Disinformation, much more than usual. I expect that is part of the Dem battle plan – push multitudes of Big Lies, overwhelm the response then ignore the issue. They know that the Big Lies will remain in the minds of some sheeples and if enough of them can be influenced along with their other bag of tricks (vote fraud, October surprise etc.) enough of them will be able to hold on to their phony baloney jobs (thanks, Mel Brooks as Gov in B.S.). They won’t fight back for an exposed lie, that would keep it in the public conscience. They just want those little seeds of doubt to grow and flourish when we fail to keep them illuminated. Unfortunately, two more years of this one party regime would just about finish their job of destruction.

    Conservatives avoid using lies because we can tell the truth and get elected. The tidal wave of lies from 0bama bin Lyin and his regime must be pushed back by every conservative candidate. Even if a Big Lie is 72 hours old, keep up the pressure on it and publicly expose the left’s fraudulent strategies.

  • teresakoch

    What’s the next step, and is this something that can go to the Supreme Court and have a chance of getting overturned? This country is absolutely going to go down the tubes if this isn’t repealed ASAP – and I have NO confidence in the GOP to do what it is going to take to do that.

    I am mad. No, I am more than mad – I am livid. I am about ready to “storm the castle” at this point, and I know that I am not the only one. I’m not sure that the folks in Washington REALLY understand how mad people are out here in the “real” world.

    I am truly afraid of what might happen, but I honestly don’t see any way out of this other than in such a manner that will not be good for this country….

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    when this case makes it to SCOTUS?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    constitutional muster is under the 16th amendment

  • hickorystick

    to feed his pigs. The other Farmers paid for their feed, and this fact gave him a competitive advantage. FDR was obsessed with price controls, and this creative technique undermined his controls.
    A family of Jewish (bakers?) brought suit on another case, and broke the government, but only because it was small scale, and stayed within the locality (in NY). The Pig farmer traded across state lines.
    The whole thing is contrary to any concept of freedom.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • tngal

    from this same New York Times article Moe has cited:

    _______________________
    “Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, ?The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding? the individual-coverage requirement.

    Mr. Obama ?has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,? Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. ?This bill is a tax. Because it?s a tax, it?s completely constitutional.?
    __________________________

    So here we get a supporter of the law saying “Mr. Obama has not been honest with the American people”. Can’t imagine why we have no faith in commu, er, sociali, um politicians.

    Pelosi claimed we wouldn’t know what was in it until they passed it. Well, that’s another dishonest statement because most of us knew the mandate was a tax from the outset no matter how much Gibbs screamed it wasn’t.

    BTW Gibbs: You realize you had very little credibility before and now you’re not even a very good sock puppet.

  • trutexan

    and that’s why the IRS was put in charge. A no-brainer. But for the president to blatantly lie about it …

    What kind of man does not care for or hates his country so much?

  • stilhdr

    Seems as though everything coming from the WH is being challenged. Lawsuits are running rampant. When this occurs, we, as citizens loose the ability to to direct those funds to much more productive resources. We are continuing to push this country into two groups, the “haves” and the “have nots”. It wasnt long ago when there was actually a middle class. That doesnt seem to exist today.
    When all is said and done, no matter how things turn out, nobody wins. When is it that people stop to realize who is paying the bill for all this litigation?

  • renny

    because taxation always starts in the Congress.

    But, Obamanationites are wrong that Congress can invent and tax whatever it wants. In this case, it’s a tax on buying insurance.

    The states will have to adjust their arguments, because the only way to stop this disaster is to keep it tied up until a new president can sign repeal legislation.

  • qixlqatl
  • Menlo

    It’s a done deal, and the only option remaining is for us as individuals to defy it.

    I don’t think people who voted for Obama believed him about the taxes. Even those who may have don’t care and never did. It is not going to change anyone’s opinion of Obama or the Democrats.

  • kchand

    Obama doesn’t really care about these type of ‘details’.

    Individual mandate IS NOT a tax just like Arizona’s illegal immigrant law IS racial profiling.

  • johnt

    MediaScum think it’s all justified. No price to high for a wrecked America..

  • ceili_dancer

    Also, does tax law need to start in the House and then be reconciled with the Senate version, or if as what happened here, with the committee objected to, shouldn’t the Senate vote for the House version then? Because it was as if the House version never existed and it started in the Senate as chains of ownership goes.

  • David123

    You can’t fool all the people all the time.

    Remember the first Bush’s “Read my lips – No new taxes.”

    We’ve got elections coming up in 2010 and again in 2012 …. and the ads for Republican candidates practically write themselves.

    “If you make less than $250,000/year your taxes will not go up.” lie
    “If you like the health insurance you’ve got now, you can keep it.” for many people, a lie
    “No tax money will pay for abortions.” lie
    “I’ll close GITMO within 1 year.” Lie – and a stupid thing to say in the first place

  • marshmom

    campaign commercial for the 2012 elections. He proves right on camera it’s a blatant, outright, bold-faced LIE!
    Have footage of him in his interview with Stephanopodope “rejecting” the definition of a tax then have the facts chime in with LIAR spread across the screen.
    Heck, use it this year too to get rid of all the idiots who voted for this horror.

  • acat

    How does one go about persuading enough people to not file their information to make a difference?

    Kids can’t apply to a college without filling out a financial aid statement – and guess what, they want to see the parents’ last 1040. No 1040, no financial aid.

    Parents can’t apply for or modify an existing home loan without the banks wanting to see the 1040. If you like your house and plan to die there, that’s one thing…

    Try to buy a car on credit after not paying your taxes for a couple years and see what happens….

    It’d be *very* hard to get *enough* Americans refusing to file 1040s to get rid of this beast by a civil disobedience based nullification.

    Mew

  • acat
  • acat

    Because that’s the only “defiance” that’s going to be possible – just stop submitting.

    So. Since you advocate for it, tell us how to go about things like getting a mortgage, or a car loan, or a student loan without submitting a 1040.

    Also, please note, I’m not saying “without paying taxes” – it’s very possible in this country to not have to pay any tax – nearly 50% of the population don’t pay a dime in federal income tax – but it’s not possible for many of them to do so without filing the dreaded 1040.

    Mew

  • izoneguy

    Obama rejects the notion that mandating health insurance is NOT a tax increase – but he now is trying to sell it as a tax in order for it to pass muster….

    President Obama – Either you were lying in this interview or mandating health insurance is not a tax and therefore unconstitutional.

  • nancylee

    I’ve followed closely the saga of the so-called health bill, and all the other ways the government is poking its nose into more and more of the things in my life that I never thought twice about until now, and it scares me to death. I see Totalitarian State written all over this, where the government will exert itself to make the last part of my life miserable — all for the greater good, of course.

    I am 62. I can’t wait for twenty-five years, hoping that this horrible mess will get turned around somehow. The Progressive bulldozer seems to be thundering across all our lives and freedoms and crushing the dreams of ordinary Americans to dust. Even a lot of Republicans are Progressives and, in my view, can’t be trusted. Even they think we’re all too stupid to be allowed to make our own decisions. There seems to be no one in the “ruling class” that is on the side of the rest of us.

    I don’t want to live in their idea of Utopia, because the only ones who will benefit will be the elite. The rest of us will be regulated to death “for our own good.”

    Is there any way it can be stopped before it’s too late?

  • David123

    collect health insurance taxes. Congress could also direct that the IRS pubs be printed without the lines where you’d report on your health insurance coverage and put in how much you owe on health insurance taxes.

    Now this isn’t the individual action that you were asking Menlo about – but I think this would work. Obama might veto outright repeal. He could veto this too – no problem – it just defunds and shuts down the entire IRS if he vetos the funding bill with the funding restrictions. and shutting down just the IRS wouldn’t backfire on Republicans like shutting down the whole government did during the Gingrich years.

  • JSobieski

    Congresscritters are not known for their hardened spines.

  • http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

    As my co-author and I explain in the current issue of Tax Notes, the ?penalty? violates Congress? taxing powers. The NYT article focuses on ?general welfare,? which is the least significant of the Constitutional restrictions regarding taxes.

    http://ssrn.com/abstract=1589190

    To be Constitutional, a tax must be:

    1. A Uniform Impost
    2. A Uniform Duty
    3. A Uniform Excise
    4. Imposed on ?derived income? under the 16th Amendment, or
    5. A properly apportioned Direct or Capitation Tax.

    No one suggests the Health Care Penalty satisfies numbers one or two. It fails number three because it is not, as consistently required, imposed on a transaction, the use of property or services, or on the exercise of a privilege. It is also not a ?pass-on? tax, which is typical of nearly all excises. The only ?failure to act? excises are easily distinguished as either substantively on actions or on entities, rather than on individuals. Thus this is not a Constitutional Excise.

    Despite it being nominally a function of income, the important ?trigger? involves the potential for an individual to ?shift costs? to others. The Government makes this argument in its Michigan brief; indeed, that is a substantial concession by the Government. But, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly found, such ?potential? income is not yet ?derived? under the 16th Amendment. In short, the ?income? being taxed does not yet exist at the time the penalty will apply ? hence the tax is premature. Thus it fairs number four.

    That leaves number five: a Direct Tax or a Capitation Tax, which is exactly what the tax penalty amounts to; however, it fails the essential ?apportionment? by population requirement which appears twice in the Constitution.

    Thus, as Nakku Chung and I explain in the Tax Notes article, the tax penalty is unconstitutional. Randy Barnett and others adequately discuss the constitutionality of the ?mandate? (as opposed to the ?penalty?) under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment.

  • redcometchar2010

    If the court rejects the claim that the mandate is a tax, then it will PROBABLY rule the mandate unconstitutional and thus Obamacare will start to crumble. There is a great article by Richard Epstein (http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/archives/2009/12/impermissible-ratemaking-in-he.php) showing other flaws with the law and if these are successfully challenged then the law is in serious trouble. If the court agrees this is a tax, then you have all 60 Dem senators on record as voting for a middle class tax increase (good luck in getting re-elected, esp red/purple state dems) and for Obama in 2012 you have a repeat of the Clinton attacks on Bush 41 with read my lips. Every purple and light blue dem who voted for Obamacare is in trouble now because with a lousy economy they have just gone on record as having voted for a giant tax increase. The Repubs get to have their cake and eat it too, the Dems lose both ways.

  • JSobieski

    adjusting the rates so that everyone pays the penalty and then simultaneously credit the people with compliant plans?

    In other words, everyone’s taxes are essentially increased by the penalty amount, and then a tax credit is given to those with qualifying plans.

    Case law on the issue of taxes looks to substance, not form. The government gives credits for all sorts of things, and same outcome could clearly be implemented through the use of a different form/characterization.

    Bottom line: smart money says the statute will be upheld–at least that is my prediction.

  • Jack_Savage

    Yessir, without a doubt. Send ‘em in.

    Now what is ON the 1040 is another matter entirely. My income just went way, way down. Recession and all.

    Go Galt, young man, go Galt.

  • Menlo

    You pay your regular taxes but do not buy, accept, or pay the “penalty” for not having so-called “health insurance.”

  • Menlo

    Under the current measures, the most they can do for nonpayment of the “penalty” is to a deny a refund if one is due.

  • http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

    Read the article, if you have not already done so.

    http://ssrn.com/abstract=1589190

    The Taxing Power and the Spending Power are different. Generally, Spending must be for the “general welfare.” Taxing must also satisfy one of the five categories I describe above. This “penalty” does not.

    We address form and substance in the article extensively. After teaching tax law for 30 years (plus 36 years as a CPA), I respectfully disagree with your generalization about “case law” [a term I never use] looking to substance, not form. I’d need a great deal more space to explain the intricacies; however, in Gregory v. Helvering – perhaps the most cited tax opinion – the Supreme Court held that substance controls over form except when form controls over substance (or vice versa . . . I forget).

    I’m not placing bets. If I were, I’d bet at least one of the three District Courts upholds the law and at least one strikes it down. Same prediction for the three Circuits likely to hear the cases.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vidaestrada Veronica
  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    to purchase health insurance on penalty of law a *separate* constitutional issue? Theoretically, I believe these issues can be separated.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    regardless of the merits of your analysis. Thanks for both your and JSobieski’s input.

  • http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

    taken literally, 100 times a negative is a bigger negative.

    But, thank you.

  • redneck_hippie

    Get active in get out the vote efforts and look into the ways you can support your local Republican party

  • JSobieski

    (3) They put you in jail for not paying the bill.

    The HCR tax/penalty is not some separate amount—it is part of your overall income and payroll tax liability. Short change the government on that, and you will be charged a lot of interest until you pay up. If you flagrantly refuse to pay, you will be the next Wesley Snipes.

  • Menlo

    As a “penalty,” it is indeed a separate amount. As I went over ad nauseum back in March, the bill that was passed explicitly carves out this exception. It is not treated the same and explicitly bars the government from doing anything those who refuse to pay the “penalty.”

  • JSobieski

    So while it may be a separate line item on your 1040, failure to pay the penalty by paying your 11040 – the penalty is failure to pay your 1040 in full.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • acat

    Which means the IRS will charge interest for non-payment, and will (eventually – next time Congress needs to fill the coffers…) get toggled over.

    Needs to be repealed. Period.

    Mew

    p.s. to Jack Savage – I am going Galt as fast as I can…

  • Menlo
  • thelibrul

    Unlike Circuit Courts where another judge can sub in, the SCOTUS only and always have 9. I’m also gonna guess that they’ve kept her away from any of the Healthcare law’s challenges (other than signing off on the paperwork).

  • Menlo

    It was explicitly provided for.

  • nancylee

    In our local Tea Party group and I regularly contribute to the Senate and House Conservatives funds. I also contribute to Tea Party candidates across the country. I see the things the Democrats are sneaking into five thousand page bills and I know all of it isn’t going to be repealed. I have never seen the government so out of control in my life and a good deal of the time I am terrified for my country, my children and my grandchildren (8, so far). If we keep going the way we are right now, there is going to be no trace of the country I love left by the time that they are grown.

  • JSobieski

    Lets say the penalty is $2,000. You underpay your 1040 by $2,000. The IRS will apply your payments in such a manner that you actually paid your penalty, and simply underpayed your remaining taxes. Thats how this will end up.

    There are many example of IRS regulations and policies in which the IRS determines how the accounting works. For example, if you had a tax dispute in 2005, one way to minimize your liabilities instead of paying 5 years on interest on the 2005 taxes would be to say that some of your 2006 was actually your 2005, some of your 2007 was your 2006, etc. Doing this would minimize the interest that you owed. However, the IRS won’t allow that.

    If you had ever been in a dispute with the IRS over offsetting expenses, you would understand what I mean. Statutory language in some contexts is fairly easy to get around.

    Remember the abortion issue? And how federal funding was prohibited under the executive order—an order that is still in force? Well, public funding of abortions is here.

  • JSobieski

    The IRS will allocate how your tax obligations are paid. They will not charge your for “failing to pay the penalty” (that would be prohibited under the statute), but they will apply your payments to the penalty, leaving you with $X underpayment on your general 1040 obligation. Your “penalty” will be paid, but your 1040 payment will be short the penalty amount.

    The IRS determines how partial payments are applied, and trust me, that determination will not be in favor of people purposely not paying the penalty.

    If you have ever worked with accountants or lawyers, you would understand how much power resides in the ability to determine how partial payments are applied.

  • JSobieski

    The government form will almost certainly not provide a check the box if your underpayment is for the purposes of not paying the HCR penalty. You will owe X, but only be paying X – penalty. Nothing stops the IRS from concluding that you intended to pay the penalty, but inadvertantly (or purposefully for that matter) simply underpayed your taxes.

    Money is fungible. There are all sorts of examples of statutes that say certain things that end up not being true. For example, after 9/11, the TSA was obligated to all sorts of things under statute that never happened.

    Bottom Line: The IRS has ample discretion to interpret your partial payment as a payment of the penalty and an incomplete payment of the your general 1040 obligations.

  • JSobieski

    The fact that a statute says something doesn’t mean that regulations won’t sneak around inconvenient statuory provisions.

    Heck, the EPA has successfully asserted the right to regulate Carbon emissions even though Congress never voted to give them that authority. The fact that you can’t make this analogous leap and understand how the regulations can undermine statutes is both a credit to your integrity and a swipe against your ability to “think like a lawyer”

  • pamela1631

    Counting down until November 2010 and 2012

    Then let’s get this travesty and waste of a forest repealed.

    In Full. No Repeal and Replace.
    Shred that sucker and turn it into litter.

    I pray the new Congress will be honorable and diligent in upholding the Constitution.

    And if they aren’t, may they be driven out in disgrace.

  • acat

    and any banker, whether you’re trying to buy Mom a retirement cottage, buy a car so you can get to work, or help get your kid through college, isn’t going to want to help out someone who hasn’t paid their taxes…

    Just sayin’ there’s a reason why the Obama administration picked the IRS, not the Surgeon General, not the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (who work Medicare fraud cases) to do the enforcement. … IRS have teeth.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    The US Constitution explicitly says that Congress shall make no law infringing freedom of speech.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    So the campaign finance reform laws used to prosecute film makers for political speech, was that all in our collective imaginations? Do you now agree that despite the EXPRESS words in the Constitution, that the provision was not followed?

    If liberals find ways around Constitutional provisions, what makes you think that mere statutory language will stop them?

  • Menlo

    I simply do not believe that is going to happen. There was an article a while back that touched on this, and the Obama administration acknowledged it, assuming that most people would not make that choice. I agree hardly anyone will whether there is a penalty or not, so I certainly do not believe underpayment is going to prompt any added enforcement.

    Regardless, I don’t believe this “interpretation” you envision (which contradicts the legislation itself) can or will happen, and these attempted analogies of actions on other issues will not convince me (just as I do not believe that history repeats itself). It does not have a ring of truth or reality to it, even in light of everything else that has happened.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • thelibrul

    I really don’t know much about the conditions for Supremes recusing themselves, but I remember reading something by Scalia talking about it being rare.

  • JSobieski

    The last time you said you didn’t “believe” something would happen, it was already happening (see the thousands of new regulations being proposed for public comment under the Obamacare statute).

    You probably don’t believe it when gun control laws are passed and enforced either, despite the 2nd Amendment.

    Did you know that the Supreme Court held many years ago that unions had to allow union members to opt out of campaign finance contributions made by the unions? I don’t “believe” that law was ever enforced either.

    Laws contradict the constitution. Regulations contradict statutes. None of these things SHOULD happen, but they DO happen.

    Your “belief” is irrelevant.

  • JamesSmith130

    which means that we better repeal the bill!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • JSobieski

    is (1) self-enforcing or (2) immune from the practical realities on how it will be interpretted/enforced/not enforced. Part of what makes people conservatives is the awareness that the administration/enforcement of laws is imperfect because man is imperfect. Liberals are far less humble about the ability of an organization (such as government) to implement all sorts of complex rules and policies. Conservatives respect the law of unintended consequences.

    There are numerous examples of your premise being proven false, but you don’t want to believe that your premise will be proven false in the future. You are of course free to “believe” what you want.

    The last time we argued about a healthcare regulatory issue you were immediately demonstrably incorrect. In this case, it will take until 2014 for that to be the case.

    Government agencies enacted affirmative action programs based on race despite the clear wording of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Murders happen every day even though there are clear statutes on the issue. Government employees engage in prohibited economic relationships despite statutory provisions on conflicts of interest. Cities enact gun control laws despite the 2nd amendment. Defendants are presumed guilty in tax courts. The EPA can regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

    Can you point to a single example of a 2000 plus page statute not resulting in an abundance of contradictions where regulations didn’t ultimately go beyond the intention of the Congress in passing the statutute at the time?

  • ritaok

    make it stick is the task of the establishment republicans in Washington as well as in the hinterlands. If the Sunday talk shows were any indication, these republicans are NOT going to cut it. I am sick of the establishment pubbies. No fire, no plan, just “vote for me”. Not even a good arguement. All defense. Nothing.

  • JSobieski

    she expressly agrees in advance in a Congressional hearing to do so. Even then, the chance would only go up to 50%.

    FYI, a recusal means that the court only has 8 votes. In the past, this has led to 4-4 votes, which means that the lower court ruling is affirmed.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Of course, she should step down. But will she?

  • acat

    I’m close enough to Chicago to have a pretty darn good idea just what the Dems are capable of when it comes to selective enforcement, ‘kay?

    Mew

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/confusion-about-elena-kagan-and-recusal/

    Without knowing anything about the cases cited here (other than HCR), *all things being equal*, I would think if Kagan recuses herself from one “gimme’, meaningless case” she’d have to recuse herself from all cases where she acted in a like-manner. In other words, she’d have to recuse herself from 0 cases — or 30 cases, but nothing in between.

  • Menlo

    I certainly don’t think statutes or the Constitution are followed. This act will be no different. However, I do not believe “enforcement” will follow the path you claim in this instance. That simply does not line up with the “practical reality” as I see it. Regardless, as I said, analogies aren’t going to convince me otherwise.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Re-reading the thread for a fourth time, I now see what you were referring to.

  • JSobieski

    see you in 2014.

    You weren’t “convinced” that the HHS would issue any regulations either. You “believed” that they would hold back for a while.

    Your track record doesn’t exactly convince me.

  • thelibrul

    Was covered for about 3 minutes in a prof. responsibility class I took over a year ago. It’s about the only time it ever comes up in any class in law school. I’ll keep the degree. Do you think shell recuse herself?

  • thelibrul

    Thanks.

  • johna650

    Why is this news? Ron Paul made it clear the health mandate was a tax from the time it was proposed. This is one good reason it has to be appealed. If it is not repealed, then massive resistance to paying the tax must be organized. I wonder how many of Red State?s readers have the guts to refuse to pay and face the consequences?
    Its time to take a stand against the Bolsheviks.

  • Scope

    with a brick wall that has the statement written on it “That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it”?

  • JSobieski

    Brick walls do collapse from time to time.

  • iunknown

    The House passed the Senate’s bill since Scott Brown was elected. That means that this new ‘Tax’ originated in the Senate, not the House.

    That is a violation of Article 1 Section 7.

  • acat

    This must be one of the signs of the apocalypse… what’s next, me getting a dog for a roommate?

    Mew

  • grox

    I’ve said since the beginning of this that Conservatives should have correctly framed the Health Care Plan as a $1500/ employee tax on business. If it had been proposed as such no business in their right mind would have stayeed silent.
    Instead the Progressives and Liberals framed the $1500 as a less expensive option to an even larger mandate to provide full coverage for all employees. It was a beautifully framed, but dishonest scam from the beginning.

  • ihateliberals

    of this article is true. We as a nation are Stupid. The younger the person the more stupid they are. the younger and more highly educated the more stupid they are. By the way Hold a Phd. I’m not stupid. I also have lived for over 60 years and I’m not stupid. Stupid gets wrapped up in Global Warming, Wars, and creating programs to take care of the poor. The only program that works to take care of the poor is “WORK”. If you create jobs you create wealth. The smaller more efficient government is the more you can create Jobs and wealth. This was true 200 years ago and it is true now. I wonder what is going to happen when those foreign governments that hate us so much find out we can’t help them anymore. we can’t prop up their failing economies anymore?

  • Brian Hibbert

    Just too many things to take him too seriously.

    For Johna650…. Ron Paul wasn’t the only person who was calling the new system a tax plan, and he was correct in this case.

  • acat

    How do you see getting the volume of civil disobedience necessary to bring about “nullification” of Obamacare?

    Look, I would very much like to believe that there’s some loophole, some reed no matter how slender that we can latch enough people onto to make it obviously unenforceable.

    You say there is one, but I remain unconvinced, and I am motivated to believe you. Your plan needs to provide more than just “I don’t think the IRS will enforce this”.

    To get a good “civil disobedience” going, the penalty for getting caught has to be something Joe Citizen is willing to pay, and enforcement needs to be spotty.

    I’ll grant you the possibility that the IRS can’t enforce, and therefore that enforcement is by definition “spotty”. That said, the cost of disobedience is still no college loan, no car loan, no house loan, no income tax refund, and higher interest rates on credit card balances. These things may not factor into your life much, Menlo, but they do matter to Joe Citizen.

    Mew

  • Menlo

    And I fully concede that, by 2015 when 2014 taxes are done, the number who will defy it could be counted on one hand even knowing there would be no consequences whatsoever. I still say there will be no consequence, short of not getting a refund, for not complying. You and everyone else may assume they will come up with creative mechanisms (in violation of the act passed) for punishing people like me, but I don’t believe, by the time 2014 taxes are reviewed in 2015 or 2016, they will bother. I think it would be wrong to give in either way, and I’m not going to do it, even if it costs me a job and puts me on the streets.

  • acat

    That doesn’t address my major concern, actually.

    How do I apply for a loan if I have to submit my 1040 for the bank to review?

    Know what they look for? Did the guy pay his taxes. Know why? They know that if I don’t pay my taxes, there’s both a good chance I could not pay the loan, and that there’s a big huge creditor in between them and any assets I have left when it goes to court.

    The IRS is not the one that makes me nervous, it’s the impact that defying the IRS on this would have.

    Just a few degrees more toward Galt-ism, and I’ll be able to say “Pock it” with some authority…

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    Yes, absolutely.

    Look at how the EPA, EEOC, FDA, and other agencies function.

    Was affirmative action even considered a possibility by those voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? NO, yet it became the law of the land in many ways through regulatory and enforcement powers.

    Did Congress ever willingly give the EPA the power to regulate Carbon emissions? NO, but under a Republican President, the issue was litigated and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of regulation.

    How many new things can the FDA attempt to regulate? Compare the scope of their authority now with their authority 20 years ago.

    Look at newspaper headlines over the past year—every government agency, whether under Republican Presidents or Democrat Presidents constantly push to expand the scope of their authority and the ability to enforce their authority.

    I do not understand why you are so determined to ignore history, but I congratulate you on your will power.

  • Wine Country Dog

    with our senators on MTP yesterday. Several untruths, partial truths and outright lies were voiced by the Dem senators and none of our guys pushed back on some of them. Granted the moderator was pushing the Republicans hard, talking over them and trying to get them to say something stupid so they were being too careful. At the same time he wasn’t pushing the Dems at all, letting them set up their lies to volley them in. I stand on my above post about the tidal wave of Big Lies coming from the left. In some instances our guys did not seem to be able or care to respond to some of the half-truths.

    Today 0bama again blamed and lectured the Republicans for not passing the unemployment extension. We know why and what’s going on but many sheeplings out there do not. I have so far heard no pushback to 0bama’s lecture this morning, leaving the unenlightened sheeplings to think maybe 0bama is right. Most of the time the Bush administration just let criticism wave over them and did remarkably little to get the truth out. Even Rove admitted that was his biggest mistake. I saw that most pointedly in the Bush social security reform push where lie after lie came from the left and AARP, yet the response from the Bush administration was mostly just crickets chirping. The end result was the 0bama one party regime. That’s exactly what the Dems are betting on again. We must leave nothing to chance or become complacent just because things are looking relatively good right now. We are not going to coast to victory without counterattacking with the facts – the Dems have lots of big lies ready to shoot at us.

  • jdw4america

    They all hate our country, because they’re all so much better than the mobs of stupid people who won’t agree with them – haven’t you gotten the memo?

  • Menlo

    It’s not all lumped under the same “taxes” label, but I don’t know how banks are going to look at it. I doubt they have made that decision themselves. I don’t think there has even been any decision as to how it will look on a tax form, let alone how banks will.

    I don’t really care though. Quite frankly, I don’t intend to get a loan for anything in my life; and I think a lot of people would be better off not doing so.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is great on Sunday shows

  • acat

    you are failing utterly in persuading me that there’s a way for Joe Citizen to be disobedient.

    Mew

  • Menlo

    It just depends on what “Joe Citizen” is willing to sacrifice for it. I don’t believe it is very much if anything. I can’t speak for you or anyone else though as I am certainly no “Joe Citizen.”

  • JSobieski

    employing people, etc. If the price for avoiding Obamacare is taking yourself out of the economy, I’m not convinced that its worth it. Self-employed people already pay a lot in terms of payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Businesses need to have a good credit rating, if only as a backstop for a late paying customer. After all, the employer needs to pay employees like you.

    Bottom line: Your plan only works because others bear the costs of providing you with a wage.

  • johna650

    Is it the endless wars, the Federal Reserve, the trillion we spend on foreign adverturism, endless spending by Republicans and the Democratic-Bolshevists? Let me know. I’m curious?