Post by Sapphire Capital on Aug 1, 2013 10:36:03 GMT 4
"Tax Versus Penalty, Round Two, Fight! Interpreting the PPACA's Assessable Payment as a Tax for Federal Funding Cost Allowances"
Boston College Law Review,
RILEY LOVENDALE, Boston College Law Review
Email: riley.lovendale@bc.edu
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), significant health care reform enacted in 2010, imposes an “assessable payment†on certain employers that fail to offer affordable health insurance to their employees. The ambiguity of the exaction’s title poses a planning problem for some nonprofits receiving federal grant funds with restrictions imposed by the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-122. Circular A-122 permits these restricted grant funds to be used for “taxes,†but not for “penalties.†On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, held in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the PPACA’s individual mandate’s “shared responsibility payment†could, for constitutional purposes, be interpreted as a tax. This Note argues that the PPACA’s assessable payment should be interpreted as a tax by applying the Supreme Court’s recent tax versus penalty analysis and analyzing the exaction’s characteristics and effect on employer behavior. This interpretation will provide organizations with predictability in planning and ensure that Congress does not escape political accountability for imposing taxes by using the ambiguous term “assessable payment.â€
Boston College Law Review,
RILEY LOVENDALE, Boston College Law Review
Email: riley.lovendale@bc.edu
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), significant health care reform enacted in 2010, imposes an “assessable payment†on certain employers that fail to offer affordable health insurance to their employees. The ambiguity of the exaction’s title poses a planning problem for some nonprofits receiving federal grant funds with restrictions imposed by the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-122. Circular A-122 permits these restricted grant funds to be used for “taxes,†but not for “penalties.†On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, held in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the PPACA’s individual mandate’s “shared responsibility payment†could, for constitutional purposes, be interpreted as a tax. This Note argues that the PPACA’s assessable payment should be interpreted as a tax by applying the Supreme Court’s recent tax versus penalty analysis and analyzing the exaction’s characteristics and effect on employer behavior. This interpretation will provide organizations with predictability in planning and ensure that Congress does not escape political accountability for imposing taxes by using the ambiguous term “assessable payment.â€
Attachments:
