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: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), significant health care reform enacted in 2010, imposes an â€œassessable paymentâ€ on certain employers that fail to offer affordable health insurance to their employees. The ambiguity of the exactionâ€™s title poses a planning problem for some nonprofits receiving federal grant funds with restrictions imposed by the Office of Management and Budgetâ€™s Circular A-122. Circular A-122 permits these restricted grant funds to be used for â€œtaxes,â€ but not for â€œpenalties.â€ On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, held in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the PPACAâ€™s individual mandateâ€™s â€œshared responsibility paymentâ€ could, for constitutional purposes, be interpreted as a tax. This Note argues that the PPACAâ€™s assessable payment should be interpreted as a tax by applying the Supreme Courtâ€™s recent tax versus penalty analysis and analyzing the exactionâ€™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 â€œassessable payment.â€
General information only, this is no legal or financial advice or legal opinion and no solicitation or offering of services. Use of posted information should be contingent on your counsel advise on a case by case basis.