IRS Gains Broader Powers Under Health Reform
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/ ... reform/IRS Gains Broader Powers Under Health Reform
Congressional Democrats broadly expanded the powers of the Internal Revenue Service in health reform, says a new analysis from ranking Republicans on the House Ways & Means Committee.
Republicans on the Subcommittee on Oversight say that this means the IRS can seize tax refunds and can audit taxpayers in order to enforce the new "individual mandate tax," [IMT] which penalizes taxpayers if they don't buy health insurance.
The IRS could get an estimated 16,500 new workers at an additional taxpayer cost of $10 billion to enforce the insurance mandate, which already faces mounting constitutional challenges, these Republicans say.
The IRS declined comment, pending the enactment of the new legislation. A Joint Committee on Taxation report on the new health reform legislation indicates that it is unclear whether or not the IRS can hit taxpayers with liens or property seizures if they don't pay the mandate penalty (see below).
In addition, the IRS would be required to determine what is "minimum essential" coverage under the new reform bill, a highly subjective area which may involve judgment calls.
For the first time, health insurers, too, would be required to issue 1099-type forms to both the IRS and taxpayers, spelling out taxpayers' health insurance coverage.
That means the US government would get dollar amounts of taxpayer health insurance coverage for the first time, possibly putting US taxpayers one step closer to seeing their health benefits taxed, a feature in earlier versions of health reform.
And the IRS would assess new taxes and penalties on employers for failing to offer "affordable" health insurance, as defined by the government, the Republicans' report notes.
In addition, the IRS would have to verify small business health coverage information, including wage levels and number of employees.
The IRS’s powers are effective immediately, as an estimated $400 billion in new taxes and fees kick in starting in 2013.
The insurance mandate takes effect in 2013, too. New coverage subsidies for small businesses begin immediately, and new insurance exchanges start in 2013 as well.
Set aside for now the notion that the IRS is being asked to enforce a health reform bill that many in Congress likely did not read in its entirety.
Broader IRS powers are being enacted despite the news that a growing number of states may mount potential court challenges based on the constitutionality of health reform’s insurance mandate, among other things (Click on EMac's January column: “Is Health Reform Unconstitutional?”). Florida, Alabama, Idaho, Nebraska ,Virginia, Texas, Utah and Washington number among the states planning court challenges.
Some legal experts say this fight may reach the level of the US Supreme Court, as it centers on the US constitution's interstate commerce clause. Congressional Democrats say they have the power to mandate that taxpayers must buy health insurance or pay a fine.
Even though legal experts say the US constitution does not force Americans to buy any good or service as a condition of being a citizen, and that the constitution does not let Congress regulate the act of doing nothing, meaning having to pay a fine if you don't buy insurance.
Also, despite the fact that health reform was largely enacted under the US constitution's interstate commerce clause, the insurance exchanges launched in the bill essentially do not let taxpayers buy health insurance across state lines, although the new law says states may merge their exchanges with neighboring states.
Under the new health reform bill, the IRS will now have the ability to issue seize tax refunds, assess penalties, and verify whether taxpayers' health insurance coverage is "acceptable," these Republicans say.
“One of the most troubling aspects of this new IRS authority is the newly granted power to collect additional taxes from Americans whose health insurance coverage is deemed to be insufficient to meet the definition of minimum coverage, as defined by federal bureaucrats, required to be purchased,” the House Republicans’ analysis says.
The report adds: “Disturbingly, the IRS would be in charge of verifying that every American taxpayer has obtained acceptable health coverage for every month of the year. If the IRS determines that a taxpayer lacks acceptable insurance for even a single month, then the IRS would impose a new tax on that taxpayer, even auditing the taxpayer and could assess interest and penalties on top of the tax.”
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, says the health reform bill "is a very dangerous expansion of the IRS' power and reach into the lives of virtually every American," Rep. Camp said in a statement.
There are conflicting reports on just what powers the IRS now has to enforce this new mandate.
As noted, a report from the Joint Committee on Taxation on the IRS's new responsibilities under health reform says the following about the penalty for not having the "minimum essential coverage":
"Failure to pay the penalty results in the same interest and penalties as apply to unpaid income tax... The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed...the use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty."
But then the report says this: "Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner. No penalty is assessed for individuals who do not maintain health insurance for a period of three months or less during the taxable year."
The report from the Republicans on the Subcommittee on Oversight at Ways and Means says, among other things:
IRS agents would be tasked with determining whether Americans had obtained the insurance coverage required under the individual mandate.
Individuals could be fined $2,250 or 2% of income, whichever is greater, if you are unable to prove you have "minimum essential coverage."
The IRS would be empowered to confiscate tax refunds if necessary.
Audits probably would increase as a result of the legislation's new requirements.
The budget for IRS operations will balloon by $10 billion in the next decade in order to administrate the new program.
Nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid "by Americans earning less than 300% of poverty, $66,150 for a family of four.
who was it that was saying that this was just abunch of B.S. 6 months ago ?
I hope you people that voted for Obama are happy cos you got exactly what he hell you voted for.
So let's get this straight. anyone who buys a private ins plan thats not aprroved by the gov is subject to severe taxation,fines and imprisonment,and if they don't comply with the GOV.Or Anyone that chooses not to buy any insurance at all faces the same fate.
and yet this bill doesn't train a single doctor .
Well that fucking says at all .
:shock: :evil:
Congressional Democrats broadly expanded the powers of the Internal Revenue Service in health reform, says a new analysis from ranking Republicans on the House Ways & Means Committee.
Republicans on the Subcommittee on Oversight say that this means the IRS can seize tax refunds and can audit taxpayers in order to enforce the new "individual mandate tax," [IMT] which penalizes taxpayers if they don't buy health insurance.
The IRS could get an estimated 16,500 new workers at an additional taxpayer cost of $10 billion to enforce the insurance mandate, which already faces mounting constitutional challenges, these Republicans say.
The IRS declined comment, pending the enactment of the new legislation. A Joint Committee on Taxation report on the new health reform legislation indicates that it is unclear whether or not the IRS can hit taxpayers with liens or property seizures if they don't pay the mandate penalty (see below).
In addition, the IRS would be required to determine what is "minimum essential" coverage under the new reform bill, a highly subjective area which may involve judgment calls.
For the first time, health insurers, too, would be required to issue 1099-type forms to both the IRS and taxpayers, spelling out taxpayers' health insurance coverage.
That means the US government would get dollar amounts of taxpayer health insurance coverage for the first time, possibly putting US taxpayers one step closer to seeing their health benefits taxed, a feature in earlier versions of health reform.
And the IRS would assess new taxes and penalties on employers for failing to offer "affordable" health insurance, as defined by the government, the Republicans' report notes.
In addition, the IRS would have to verify small business health coverage information, including wage levels and number of employees.
The IRS’s powers are effective immediately, as an estimated $400 billion in new taxes and fees kick in starting in 2013.
The insurance mandate takes effect in 2013, too. New coverage subsidies for small businesses begin immediately, and new insurance exchanges start in 2013 as well.
Set aside for now the notion that the IRS is being asked to enforce a health reform bill that many in Congress likely did not read in its entirety.
Broader IRS powers are being enacted despite the news that a growing number of states may mount potential court challenges based on the constitutionality of health reform’s insurance mandate, among other things (Click on EMac's January column: “Is Health Reform Unconstitutional?”). Florida, Alabama, Idaho, Nebraska ,Virginia, Texas, Utah and Washington number among the states planning court challenges.
Some legal experts say this fight may reach the level of the US Supreme Court, as it centers on the US constitution's interstate commerce clause. Congressional Democrats say they have the power to mandate that taxpayers must buy health insurance or pay a fine.
Even though legal experts say the US constitution does not force Americans to buy any good or service as a condition of being a citizen, and that the constitution does not let Congress regulate the act of doing nothing, meaning having to pay a fine if you don't buy insurance.
Also, despite the fact that health reform was largely enacted under the US constitution's interstate commerce clause, the insurance exchanges launched in the bill essentially do not let taxpayers buy health insurance across state lines, although the new law says states may merge their exchanges with neighboring states.
Under the new health reform bill, the IRS will now have the ability to issue seize tax refunds, assess penalties, and verify whether taxpayers' health insurance coverage is "acceptable," these Republicans say.
“One of the most troubling aspects of this new IRS authority is the newly granted power to collect additional taxes from Americans whose health insurance coverage is deemed to be insufficient to meet the definition of minimum coverage, as defined by federal bureaucrats, required to be purchased,” the House Republicans’ analysis says.
The report adds: “Disturbingly, the IRS would be in charge of verifying that every American taxpayer has obtained acceptable health coverage for every month of the year. If the IRS determines that a taxpayer lacks acceptable insurance for even a single month, then the IRS would impose a new tax on that taxpayer, even auditing the taxpayer and could assess interest and penalties on top of the tax.”
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, says the health reform bill "is a very dangerous expansion of the IRS' power and reach into the lives of virtually every American," Rep. Camp said in a statement.
There are conflicting reports on just what powers the IRS now has to enforce this new mandate.
As noted, a report from the Joint Committee on Taxation on the IRS's new responsibilities under health reform says the following about the penalty for not having the "minimum essential coverage":
"Failure to pay the penalty results in the same interest and penalties as apply to unpaid income tax... The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed...the use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty."
But then the report says this: "Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner. No penalty is assessed for individuals who do not maintain health insurance for a period of three months or less during the taxable year."
The report from the Republicans on the Subcommittee on Oversight at Ways and Means says, among other things:
IRS agents would be tasked with determining whether Americans had obtained the insurance coverage required under the individual mandate.
Individuals could be fined $2,250 or 2% of income, whichever is greater, if you are unable to prove you have "minimum essential coverage."
The IRS would be empowered to confiscate tax refunds if necessary.
Audits probably would increase as a result of the legislation's new requirements.
The budget for IRS operations will balloon by $10 billion in the next decade in order to administrate the new program.
Nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid "by Americans earning less than 300% of poverty, $66,150 for a family of four.
who was it that was saying that this was just abunch of B.S. 6 months ago ?
I hope you people that voted for Obama are happy cos you got exactly what he hell you voted for.
So let's get this straight. anyone who buys a private ins plan thats not aprroved by the gov is subject to severe taxation,fines and imprisonment,and if they don't comply with the GOV.Or Anyone that chooses not to buy any insurance at all faces the same fate.
and yet this bill doesn't train a single doctor .
Well that fucking says at all .
:shock: :evil:
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Its a damn fact. I mean are you really that damn ignorant and gooing say just because it's from foxes web site it's not true ? :roll:
and your boy Weiner couldn't even answer the damn question > Who's going to enforce these laws ? He would never give a straight answer Because he doesn't know cos he hasn't read the damn bill. or he knows and was lying. So to say he Owned O'reilly is a pretty lame argument and you know it is. And you just admitted to watching O'reilly
WTF are you talking about ? if the GOP would have participated in this debate. How could they when all the damn deals were being made behind closed and locked doors. I mean seriously .. What the helll are you even talking about when you say things like this. You really are cluless. did you forget when Obama met with the republicans and Obama wanted nothing to do with what the GOP Offered.
and your msnbc talking points are really starting to get old. ( obama's waterloo ) It just shows how out of touch you are with what is going on and how people really feel about this bill.
You don't have any idea how pissed people are right now. The american people are so disgusted with your party that it's going to cost them dems both houses and Obama's chance at a 2nd term. And every time when he 's arrogant like he was today when speaking, people are not going to forget.
So your going to wait to see if these claims come true ? :? and then what ? Oh I forgot you like more Gov. You like the fact that the gov is going to have a choke hold on people even if they don't want to purchase health Ins. Don't you get it dude ? Can't you see that this is an attack on our liberty ?
How can you not see that ?
Abrn Hlls '98 - Clarkston 2 '03 - Grd Rpds '06 - Abrn Hlls '06 - Clvd '10 - PJ20 - Berlin 1+2 '12 - Wrigley '13 - Pitt '13- buff '13- Philly 1+2 '13 - Seattle '13
secondly, did every republican vote against the bill or not? did they offer anything other than the same old, worn out, tired suggestions like tort reform, tax cuts, and buy across state lines? NO! the offered the same same bullshit they have been saying since reagan. and i explained to you in that other thread about how tort reform would not fix the problem or lower costs. you even admitted i educated you on the topic, so for you to sit here and act like you know the ins and outs of this entire situation is laughable. you whine that the gop was shut out, but they were not offering anything other than the word "no", so i would have shut them out as well. they had over a year to participate in the debate yet they as a party chose not to. instead they posted lie after lie, gov't getting between you and your doctor, death panels, major tax increases for EVERYONE, etc, all of which have been debunked.
and as far as oreilly goes, weiner was not allowed to answer because he did not know where to begin because billo was completely and absolutely fucking wrong and dishonest in every question he asked. its like trying to talk to someone like you, i would have to try to erase your preconceived notions and erase all of the misinformation you have been fed by fox news and your wingnut bloggers and start over by giving you facts only. but you would never let me or anyone else do that because you are too obtuse and unreasonable to fucking listen for 5 minutes.
obama's waterloo?? your republican party chief and other gop congresspeople are on record calling for health care to be obama's waterloo...you can take that to the bank because it has been reported everywhere.
its also funny how you think that the dems will lose both houses when polls are not showing that 49% of americans are happy with the changes in the new law and obams has gotten a 4 point bump the last 2 weeks. reference starfall's thread about the usatoday poll...if anything, the teabaggers will siphon votes from the gop. so if that is not going to be the case, then why is the gop courting the teabaggers so hard?
attack on our liberty? which part? you can't answer that so please stop it with the melodramatics.. no wonder people do not take you "conservatives" seriously anymore . you all have completely lost it...:roll:
lastly, i watch more than msnbc, but i read more than anything. you think you know me and my habists, but you don't, so instead of assuming why not just read my posts and base your opinions on that?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm happy that I voted for Obama...
as for your angry rant...are people suddenly going to be buying private insurance plans off the black market...? are insurers going to be offering products that don't comply with the new rules and guidelines...
play by the rule and you'll be ok...if not, you won't....why is that so hard..?
the fact of the matter is i don't have to prove you wrong, and i won't. what good would it do because you are going to believe what you want to believe and go find some stupid blog to back it up and validate your irrational position instead of having an open mind and possibly GASP learning something... i told you what was the significant part of that section of the bill was and you don't believe me....oh well...all your reaction does is prove what i thought and that is that you are very thick.....if you want to be ignorant about it go ahead. it just shows everyone here how irrational you are.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You under my skin ? pshhhhhhh :roll:
so i guess this is just another stupid blog huh ?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html
Individual Mandate:
In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
It's pretty easy to understand is it not ? Either you get healthcare that meets the gov requirements or you get fined.
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
:roll:
You think I don't realize that. I know both parties been screwing us for decades. I don't mind paying taxes for roads,schools,police,fire, and infastructure. If you want to debate ss we can. As matter of fact we wont even see it because the gov have been taking from the ss funds for years and now it's almost gone. And to compare having the gov making you purchase health ins to SS is ridicoulous and to compare it to SS to Hitler shows your intellect.But both of you are missing my point entirely. Where does the Gov have the right to make you purchase something and if you don't you will be fined. Please Tell me.
And just so you know my eyes are wide open yours are obviously shut.
Right, like the teabaggers who put a Hitler mustache on Obama because they don't like his policies is perfectly sane and normal. :roll:
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
I just don't get it...
or why so many americans are scared of it
:shock:
...do they have some sort of idea that its gone terribly wrong in all the countries that have such a system?
its kind of a joke... some people are treating health care like Y2K or something
Im not scared of healthcare. Im scared of what this particular bill is going to do to our country.This bill does nothing what is truly needed for real reform. It's going to kill jobs for one and our senior citizens are really going to get it in the throat with all the cuts to medicare.
see for your self
.http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.g ... elinel.pdf
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Health care law's massive, hidden tax change
By Neil deMause, contributing writerMay 5, 2010: 11:00 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.
Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.
Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story
The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year.
Right now, the IRS Form 1099 is used to document income for individual workers other than wages and salaries. Freelancers receive them each year from their clients, and businesses issue them to the independent contractors they hire.
But under the new rules, if a freelance designer buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they'll have to send Apple a 1099. A laundromat that buys soap each week from a local distributor will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases.
The bill makes two key changes to how 1099s are used. First, it expands their scope by using them to track payments not only for services but also for tangible goods. Plus, it requires that 1099s be issued not just to individuals, but also to corporations.
Taken together, the two seemingly small changes will require millions of additional forms to be sent out.
"It's a pretty heavy administrative burden," particularly for small businesses without large in-house accounting staffs, says Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Eliminating the goods exemption could launch an avalanche of paperwork, he says: "If you cater a lunch for other businesses every Wednesday, say, that's a lot of information to keep track of throughout the year."
The paper trail
Why did these tax code revisions get included in a health-care reform bill? Welcome to Washington. The idea seems to be that using 1099 forms to capture unreported income will generate more government revenue and help offset the cost of the health bill.
A Democratic aide for the Senate Finance Committee, which authored the changes, defended the move.
"Information reporting improves tax compliance without raising taxes on small businesses," the aide said. "Health care reform includes more than $35 billion in tax cuts for small businesses ... indicating that during these tough economic times, Congress is delivering the tax breaks small businesses need to thrive."
The new rules could drastically alter the tax-reporting landscape by spotlighting payments that previously went unreported. Freelancers and other independent operators typically write off stacks of business expenses; having to issue tax paperwork documenting each of them could cut down on fraudulent deductions.
More significantly, the 1099 trail would expose payments to small operators that might now be going unreported. If you buy a computer for your business from a major chain retailer, the seller almost certainly documents the revenue. But if you buy it from Tim's Computer Shack down the street, Tim might not report and pay taxes on his income from the sale.
The IRS estimates that the federal government loses more than $300 billion each year in tax revenue on income that goes unreported. Using 1099s to document millions of transactions that now go untracked is one way to begin to close the gap.
While all but unnoticed at the time -- a Pennsylvania business group issued the first warning last October as the idea emerged in draft Senate legislation -- the 1099 rule changes began sparking attention in the blogosphere in the last week. The libertarian Cato Institute called it a "costly, anti-business nightmare"; Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., introduced legislation last week that would repeal the new 1099 requirements.
The notion of mailing a tax form to Costco or Staples each year to document purchases may seem absurd to small business owners, but that's not the worst of it, tax experts say.
Marianne Couch, a principal with the Cokala Tax Group in Michigan and former chair of a citizen advisory group to the IRS on small business and self-employed tax issues, thinks the bigger headache will be data collection: gathering names and taxpayer identification numbers for every payee and vendor that you do business with.
But she also sees a silver lining in the new law.
Her firm already recommends collecting tax data on all vendors, since the IRS requires that you have it on hand at the time of the transaction, not just at tax-filing time. And eliminating the corporate and goods exemptions at least means that businesses will no longer have to pour over every transaction to determine if it needs a 1099. The new rule is simpler: If it crosses the $600 threshold, it's in.
"There are probably going to be some hiccups along the way, because systems will need to be redesigned," says Couch. "But overall I believe it will make compliance on the payor end a lot more streamlined and easier."
In any case, the final impact of the law won't be known until the IRS issues its regulations on the new law, which aren't expected to arrive until sometime next year. The IRS has not yet commented on when it will release regulations or schedule public hearings, and an agency spokesman was unsure when it will do so. The new requirements kick in January 1, 2012.
I think in the end though it ends up complicating and already complicated process.