Major Blow to Obamacare Mandate: IRS Won't Reject Tax Returns That Don't Answer Health Insurance Question (Feb. 16, 2017)

Educate-Yourself
The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

Major Blow to Obamacare Mandate:
IRS Won't Reject Tax Returns That Don't Answer Health Insurance Question

Notes from Ken Adachi, Editor
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/IRS-Wont-Reject-Tax-Returns-That-Dont-Answer-Health-Insurance-Question16feb17.shtml#top
February 16, 2017

Major Blow to Obamacare Mandate: IRS Won't Reject Tax Returns That Don't Answer Health Insurance Question (Feb. 16, 2017)

Facebook Censorship
To post this article on Facebook, link to the TinyUrl seen below. Facebook will remove any article identified as coming from educate-yourself.org
http://tinyurl.com/hv5wa9f

Trump signed an Executive Order on Jan. 20, 2017 (below) which told federal agencies, including the IRS, to waive any fee or any penalty imposed upon individuals or businesses who do not cooperate with the communistic, unconstitutional Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) "mandate." This includes many millions of American citizens who file individual tax returns but had NO INTENTION of cooperating with the Pelosi-Obama Communist Mandate Act of 2010. The IRS still processed tax returns in 2014 and 2015 even if the filer did not answer the question on health insurance on their tax form (see photos below), but all that was to end with tax returns filed in 2017. If you didn't answer the question and provide the health insurance info, the IRS was not going to process your tax return.

IRS Form 1040 for 2016 has health quesiton on line 61:

Form 1040A for 2016 has queston on line 38:

Prior to Trump's Executive Order, the only way the IRS would have been able to collect the penalty fee was to take it out of your tax refund. If you took care to not overpay your taxes, then they weren't going to get much out of you, no matter how high they jacked up those absurd and obscene penalty fees (masquerading as a "tax" thanks to sellout, turncoat Justice John Roberts after being placed on the Supreme Court as a supposed conservative).

The IRS couldn't put you in jail and they couldn't garnish wages or use other forms of financial arm twisting, but Trump saved us from all that hassle by forbidding the imposition of penalties or fees. The Republican Party Establishment, epitomized by the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, who tried so hard to prevent Trump from becoming President, is going to do everything possible to not repeal Obamacare, so it's up to the American People to put the pressure on the sellout RINOs to let them know that their careers are on the line. It only takes 51 Senate votes to overturn the "mandate" portion of Obamacare. That's the provision that infuriates American partriots more than anything else. If there ever was a President who needed the support and backing of the American people, it's Trump because he's in a sea of sharks and without the steadfast loyalty and support of the American People, he will be swamped and overtaken by the NWO sellouts. We can't sit on our hands and expect him to save us single handedly. It's not going to happen. We have to participate in our own rescue.

Ken Adachi

Major Blow to Obamacare Mandate: IRS Won't Reject Tax Returns That Don't Answer Health Insurance Question
The tax agency has stopped requiring individual filers to indicate whether they maintained health coverage or paid the mandate penalty as required under the law

By Peter Suderman, Feb. 14, 2017

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/14/irs-blow-to-obamacare-individual-mandate

How much difference does a single line on a tax form make? For Obamacare's individual mandate, the answer might be quite a lot.

Following President Donald Trump's executive order instructing agencies to provide relief from the health law, the Internal Revenue Service appears to be taking a more lax approach to the coverage requirement.

The health law's individual mandate requires everyone to either maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty, known as a "shared responsibility payment." The IRS was set to require filers to indicate whether they had maintained coverage in 2016 or paid the penalty by filling out line 61 on their form 1040s. Alternatively, they could claim exemption from the mandate by filing a form 8965.

For most filers, filling out line 61 would be mandatory. The IRS would not accept 1040s unless the coverage box was checked, or the shared responsibility payment noted, or the exemption form included. Otherwise they would be labeled "silent returns" and rejected.

Instead, however, filling out that line will be optional.

Earlier this month, the IRS quietly altered its rules to allow the submission of 1040s with nothing on line 61. The IRS says it still maintains the option to follow up with those who elect not to indicate their coverage status, although it's not clear what circumstances might trigger a follow up.

But what would have been a mandatory disclosure will instead be voluntary. Silent returns will no longer be automatically rejected. The change is a direct result of the executive order President Donald Trump issued in January directing the government to provide relief from Obamacare to individuals and insurers, within the boundaries of the law.

"The recent executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden," the IRS said in a statement to Reason. "Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn't indicate their coverage status."

The tax agency says the change will reduce the health law's strain on taxpayers. "Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected, allowing them to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund," the IRS statement said.

The change may seem minor. But it makes it clear that following Trump's executive order, the agency's trajectory is towards a less strict enforcement process.

Although the new policy leaves Obamacare's individual mandate on the books, it may make it easier for individuals to go without coverage while avoiding the penalty. Essentially, if not explicitly, it is a weakening of the mandate enforcement mechanism.

"It's hard to enforce something without information," says Ryan Ellis, a Senior Fellow at the Conservative Reform Network.

The move has already raised questions about its legality. Federal law gives the administration broad authority to provide exemptions from the mandate. But "it does not allow the administration not to enforce the mandate, which it appears they may be doing here," says Michael Cannon, health policy director at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Unless the Trump administration maintains the mandate is unconstitutional, the Constitution requires them to enforce it."

"The mandate can only be weakened by Congress," says Ellis. "This is a change to how the IRS is choosing to enforce it. They will count on voluntary disclosure of non-coverage rather than asking themselves."

The IRS notes that taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate penalty, if applicable. "Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe‎," the agency statement said.

Ellis says the new policy doesn't fully rise to the level of declining to enforce the law. "If the IRS turns a blind eye to people's status, that isn't quite not enforcing it," he says. "It's more like the IRS wanting to maintain plausible deniability."

Tax software companies are already making note of the change. Drake Software, which provides services to tax professionals, recently sent out a notice explaining the change in policy. As of February 3, the notice said, the IRS "will now accept an e-filed return that does not indicate either full-year coverage or an individual shared responsibility payment or does not include an exemption on Form 8965, as required by IRS instructions, Form 1040, line 61."

The mandate is a key component of Obamacare's coverage scheme, which is built on what experts sometimes describe as a "three-legged stool." The law requires health insurers to sell to all comers regardless of health history, and offers subsidies to lower income individuals in order to offset the cost of coverage. In order to prevent people from signing up for coverage only after getting sick, it also requires most individuals to maintain qualifying coverage or face a tax penalty. While defending the health law in court, the Obama administration maintained that the mandate was essential to the structure of the law, designed to make sure that people did not take advantage of its protections.

In a 2012 case challenging the law's insurance requirement, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional as a tax penalty. The IRS is in charge of collecting payments.

Some health policy experts have argued that the mandate was already too weak to be effective, as a result of the many exemptions that are included. A 2012 report by the consulting firm Milliman found that the mandate penalty offered only a modest financial incentives for families making 300-400 percent of the federal poverty line. More recently, health insurers have said that individuals signing up for coverage and then quickly dropping it after major health expenses is a key driver of losses, and rising health insurance premiums.

It's too early to say whether the change will ultimately make any difference. But given the centrality of the mandate to the law's coverage scheme and the unsteadiness of the law's health insurance exchanges, with premiums rising and insurers scaling back participation, it is possible that even a marginal weakening of the mandate could cause further dysfunction. Health insurers have said the mandate is a priority, and asked for it to be strengthened. Weaker enforcement of the mandate could cause insurance carriers to further reduce participation in the exchanges. One major insurer, Humana, said today that it would completely exit Obamacare's exchanges after this year.

It is also possible that congressional Republicans will make it moot by repealing much of the law, including its individual mandate, which, as a tax, can be taken down with just 51 Senate votes.

Regardless of its direct impact, however, the change may signal that the Trump administration intends to water down enforcement of the health law's most controversial requirement, even if those steps are seemingly small. The Trump administration may not be tearing Obamacare down entirely, but it appears to be taking steps to weaken the law, however subtly, one line at a time.

Correction: The IRS did not reject silent returns last year, as this story originally indicated. The plan was to go into effect this year, for 2016 returns, but the IRS reversed course on February 3. Reason regrets the error.

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

Trump's Jan 20, 2017 Executive Order Waives Any IRS Fees Imposed Upon Individuals or Businesses Who Don't Enroll with Obamacare (Affordable Care Act)

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-obamacare-executive-order/

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 20, 2017
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the “Act”). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.
Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.
Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.
Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other
2
applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.
Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 20, 2017.

Free Newsletter

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.