On topic of ACA: Line 61 is now optional

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Title says it all:

End of Obamacare?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
this American does not "love" Obamacare. I hate having to tell a government tax office about my healthcare. And I hate h... (more)

jackgeoratis (Mar. 08, 2017 @ 5:19a) |

Congress should just pass a bill already to drop requirement to carry insurance and at the same time provide legal immun... (more)

seawolf21 (Mar. 08, 2017 @ 8:06a) |

With the former president's law, illegals were not covered.  OK, that provision of the existing law was not enforced.  B... (more)

shinobi1 (Mar. 08, 2017 @ 8:50a) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

I do not see how this is the end of Obamacare. Americans love Obamacare. Nobody pays a penalty for failing to sign up for Medicare yet people always sign up for it. The same will be true for Obamacare.

This just removes some pesky paperwork. Nothing more.

JepJepJep said:   I do not see how this is the end of Obamacare. Americans love Obamacare. Nobody pays a penalty for failing to sign up for Medicare yet people always sign up for it. The same will be true for Obamacare.

This just removes some pesky paperwork. Nothing more.

  
Agreed.  The end of Obamacare is far from assured.  That is why I used a question mark in the OP.

Still, failure of enforcement regarding line 61 is a development of which I thought many would want to be aware.  It is significant news related to the ACA issue.

JepJepJep said:   I do not see how this is the end of Obamacare. Americans love Obamacare. Nobody pays a penalty for failing to sign up for Medicare yet people always sign up for it. The same will be true for Obamacare.

This just removes some pesky paperwork. Nothing more.

The population signing up for medicare and obamacare are not the same in terms of age or medical needs. That's a significant difference.

The individual mandate penalty aims at forcing young and healthy earners into signing up for insurance (or paying a fee for choosing not to contribute) at a time when they statistically will not get out of obamacare as much as they put in with their premiums (the goal being the healthy subsidizing the sick basically). Effectively removing the enforcement of the penalty would likely cause a loss in net contributors (people paying in more than they use) which in turns would cause increases in premiums for the remaining participants and/or more insurers getting out of it entirely like say Humana in 2018...

This reminds me a lot of the useless (pun intended) Use Tax in state tax laws. People are expected to voluntary report untaxed out-of-state expenses. Practically only a tiny fraction does which is a major loss of tax revenues for the states. Without practical enforcement, voluntary disclosure of tax liability will never work. That's just human nature.

Turns out the IRS didn't reject returns last year even if they left the line blank. This was the first year they were going to.

"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."

cestmoi123 said:   Turns out the IRS didn't reject returns last year even if they left the line blank. This was the first year they were going to.

"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."

  
No they just sent a funny letter trying to be threatening telling you they noticed you didn't declare having insurance that year and going forward be sure to or else you'll owe a penalty, without even mentioning the supposed penalty that was already incurred.

Removing IRS enforcement will have an impact. People will drop insurance.

How many are in that category? I expect its a minority.

>80% of the people in the exchange get tax subsidies and their average premium after the subsidy is ~$100/month. I'd imagine a large % of those people will not be moved to drop insurance now that there is no IRS penalty. Even among the 20% who get no subsidy there are certainly people who use the insurance or just think having health insurance is good common sense.

The IRS penalty isn't that high already and if you don't really want to pay for insurance then its fairly likely they're already not doing so and just paying the penalty. Are there already situations where insurance is really cheaper than the penalty? In 2015 there were 7.5 million people who paid the penalty and 10.5 million buying in the exchange.

Some young healthy people who feel no need for insurance will certainly drop and not have insurance. Some older people who ought to know better but are low income and not even swayed by generous subsidies will drop insurance because they (feel they ) can't afford $50/month.

shinobi1 said:   Title says it all:

End of Obamacare?

Start by reading the last sentence in the article, which contradicts the whole premise of the article!
It was ALWAYS optional. The IRS has NEVER rejected returns if this line wasn't filled in. They simply continued that practice this year.
Sensational fake news. Makes good clickbait though. Instead of 'apologizing' the article should simply have been withdrawn. But no, that doesn't sell ads.


BTW: The individual mandate doesn't change much anyway. Anyone with a substantial subsidy would be crazy not to take advantage of it, and people making too much for the subsidy will generally qualify for a hardship exemption unless they make more than approx $110K. That includes almost everyone, particularly since high-income individuals are mostly working in mid/large companies and get their health insurance through employment.
 

jerosen said:   Removing IRS enforcement will have an impact. People will drop insurance.
Not the only consequence unfortunately. Loss of tax revenue from 6.5 million of people paying tax penalty was estimated at $3B. As inefficient as it might be, I doubt that the IRS was spending that much in incremental operating costs for enforcement of individual mandate to collect those revenues.

So that'd seem likely to also mean less tax revenues and thus extra spending cuts - provided Congress still cares as much as during the Obama administration about balancing the budget.

Shandril said:   
jerosen said:   Removing IRS enforcement will have an impact. People will drop insurance.
Not the only consequence unfortunately. Loss of tax revenue from 6.5 million of people paying tax penalty was estimated at $3B. As inefficient as it might be, I doubt that the IRS was spending that much in incremental operating costs for enforcement of individual mandate to collect those revenues.

So that'd seem likely to also mean less tax revenues and thus extra spending cuts - provided Congress still cares as much as during the Obama administration about balancing the budget.

 Line 61 isn't the only place where the IRS can find this info. The employer sends a form to the IRS, showing that the person had insurance. Many people probably won't take the risk that a future administration (or a court decision in favor of enforcement) might have the IRS take a closer look. Not checking line 61 would be a clear red flag for an audit in such cases.

Anyone who is filing a tax return for 2016 and doesn't have a corresponding 1095C from their employer or an exchange in the IRS database is going to get flagged by the IRS eventually, maybe not on day one, but how many stories or threads have been written that started with "I just got a letter from the IRS because I forgot to include a 1099 from my taxes two years ago and I owe them $$$ plus penalties and interest...".

If nothing happens with the ACA that retroactively goes back to impact 2016 taxes, we'll start seeing discussions on FWF in the next 12-18 months with the subject "I didn't have health insurance in 2016 and now I owe a penalty plus interest, please help!"

Even if congress and the president do away with the ACA in 2017 entirely, I don't see them going back and making that law change retroactive to 2016 as it relates to penalties for not having insurance.

PTL !!!!!and T****

AverageGuy09 said:   Anyone who is filing a tax return for 2016 and doesn't have a corresponding 1095C from their employer or an exchange in the IRS database is going to get flagged by the IRS eventually, maybe not on day one, but how many stories or threads have been written that started with "I just got a letter from the IRS because I forgot to include a 1099 from my taxes two years ago and I owe them $$$ plus penalties and interest...".

If nothing happens with the ACA that retroactively goes back to impact 2016 taxes, we'll start seeing discussions on FWF in the next 12-18 months with the subject "I didn't have health insurance in 2016 and now I owe a penalty plus interest, please help!"

Even if congress and the president do away with the ACA in 2017 entirely, I don't see them going back and making that law change retroactive to 2016 as it relates to penalties for not having insurance.

  
Incorrect.  The mandate fine is different from general IRS debt in that it isn't enforceable for collections.  The only way for collection is to withhold if from your refund.

So I think your scare-story about the boogeyman IRS is going to come get folks is a bit far fetched. Also I don't see many threads on here stating that they forgot a 1099 and the IRS came at them several years later.  Typically one has to be audited, right?

IRS audits well under 1% of all returns.  And if you're making less than 200k/year it's a much lower percentage than even that.  So please stop the baseless fear mongering to further your political agenda.

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
AverageGuy09 said:   Anyone who is filing a tax return for 2016 and doesn't have a corresponding 1095C from their employer or an exchange in the IRS database is going to get flagged by the IRS eventually, maybe not on day one, but how many stories or threads have been written that started with "I just got a letter from the IRS because I forgot to include a 1099 from my taxes two years ago and I owe them $$$ plus penalties and interest...".

If nothing happens with the ACA that retroactively goes back to impact 2016 taxes, we'll start seeing discussions on FWF in the next 12-18 months with the subject "I didn't have health insurance in 2016 and now I owe a penalty plus interest, please help!"

Even if congress and the president do away with the ACA in 2017 entirely, I don't see them going back and making that law change retroactive to 2016 as it relates to penalties for not having insurance.

  
Incorrect.  The mandate fine is different from general IRS debt in that it isn't enforceable for collections.  The only way for collection is to withhold if from your refund.

So I think your scare-story about the boogeyman IRS is going to come get folks is a bit far fetched. Also I don't see many threads on here stating that they forgot a 1099 and the IRS came at them several years later.  Typically one has to be audited, right?

IRS audits well under 1% of all returns.  And if you're making less than 200k/year it's a much lower percentage than even that.  So please stop the baseless fear mongering to further your political agenda.

  Please stop advocating felony tax evasion to further your political agenda.

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
AverageGuy09 said:   Anyone who is filing a tax return for 2016 and doesn't have a corresponding 1095C from their employer or an exchange in the IRS database is going to get flagged by the IRS eventually, maybe not on day one, but how many stories or threads have been written that started with "I just got a letter from the IRS because I forgot to include a 1099 from my taxes two years ago and I owe them $$$ plus penalties and interest...".

If nothing happens with the ACA that retroactively goes back to impact 2016 taxes, we'll start seeing discussions on FWF in the next 12-18 months with the subject "I didn't have health insurance in 2016 and now I owe a penalty plus interest, please help!"

Even if congress and the president do away with the ACA in 2017 entirely, I don't see them going back and making that law change retroactive to 2016 as it relates to penalties for not having insurance.

  
Incorrect.  The mandate fine is different from general IRS debt in that it isn't enforceable for collections.  The only way for collection is to withhold if from your refund.

So I think your scare-story about the boogeyman IRS is going to come get folks is a bit far fetched. Also I don't see many threads on here stating that they forgot a 1099 and the IRS came at them several years later.  Typically one has to be audited, right?

IRS audits well under 1% of all returns.  And if you're making less than 200k/year it's a much lower percentage than even that.  So please stop the baseless fear mongering to further your political agenda.

  

Was I supposed to start a thread to say that my incorrect filing (missing income from 1099) caused the IRS to audit me?     Because that happens a lot.

Its not very hard for the IRS to match 1099's and missing income on returns then send out mail audits.   I'm assuming its automatic and computerized at this point.
 

jerosen said:   
Was I supposed to start a thread to say that my incorrect filing (missing income from 1099) caused the IRS to audit me?     Because that happens a lot.

Its not very hard for the IRS to match 1099's and missing income on returns then send out mail audits.   I'm assuming its automatic and computerized at this point.

  
You're assuming quite a lot--aren't you?

If you don't have knowledge of this happening you shouldn't appear on these forums and purport to know it is.  An assumption in your statement would qualify it, your original one did not have that.

It's a bit like cestmoi123 talking about felony tax evasion, she has absolutely no idea what she is typing about but she is purporting to know so on here.  Perhaps using the broadest interpretation and the strictest enforcement and a boatload of other assumptions that are never true to try to further her political agenda.  It simply isn't true.

News is being made regarding the ACA.  Mark Bertolini spoke out earlier today:

Link to Bertolini comments 

In addition, there is yesterday's report that Humana, too, is leaving:

Link to Humana decision 

Both Aetna and Humana are very large players in the medical insurance realm.

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
jerosen said:   
Was I supposed to start a thread to say that my incorrect filing (missing income from 1099) caused the IRS to audit me?     Because that happens a lot.

Its not very hard for the IRS to match 1099's and missing income on returns then send out mail audits.   I'm assuming its automatic and computerized at this point.

  
You're assuming quite a lot--aren't you?

If you don't have knowledge of this happening you shouldn't appear on these forums and purport to know it is.  An assumption in your statement would qualify it, your original one did not have that.

It's a bit like cestmoi123 talking about felony tax evasion, she has absolutely no idea what she is typing about but she is purporting to know so on here.  Perhaps using the broadest interpretation and the strictest enforcement and a boatload of other assumptions that are never true to try to further her political agenda.  It simply isn't true.

  

What do you think I"m assuming?

I've been audited via mail due to missing income from a 1099.    I was replying to you claiming nobody posts about that

I am assuming the IRS uses computers and automates auditing.    I think its OK for me to say I'm assuming something when I explicitly say I'm assuming it.    And I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong.   You assume I'm wrong? 

 

Exactly. Missing income from a 1099 will start an automatic audit. It's simply the IRS computer that spits out a letter saying "pay up". It's not an in-person audit.

Similarly, I would expect the same thing to happen if the 1095c is missing. ie automatic penalty against your next refund.
The one big difference is that not checking Line 61 AND not paying the penalty makes it look like deliberate (as opposed to accidental) underpayment. ie You're trying to deceive them. Instead of a three-year audit window, it makes it 6 years. Even worse, it gives the IRS an excuse to go on a fishing expedition through your ENTIRE return, even 6 years later.
Just not a good idea, no matter what your political leanings are.

shinobi1 said:   News is being made regarding the ACA.  Mark Bertolini spoke out earlier today:

Link to Bertolini comments 

In addition, there is yesterday's report that Humana, too, is leaving:

Link to Humana decision 

Both Aetna and Humana are very large players in the medical insurance realm.

  Humama is a bit player in the ACA markets. No major impact at this point. If Blue Cross were to leave, that's a different story, but no sign of that at all.

https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/are-irs-correspondence-aud...

"These audits use batch processing, an approach that fully automates the initiation, processing, and closing of corr exam cases. In fact, by using the Automated Correspondence Exam (ACE) system, the IRS can process corr exam cases with minimal to no involvement by a Tax Examiner – i.e., a human perspective – until a taxpayer reply is received."

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
AverageGuy09 said:   Anyone who is filing a tax return for 2016 and doesn't have a corresponding 1095C from their employer or an exchange in the IRS database is going to get flagged by the IRS eventually, maybe not on day one, but how many stories or threads have been written that started with "I just got a letter from the IRS because I forgot to include a 1099 from my taxes two years ago and I owe them $$$ plus penalties and interest...".

If nothing happens with the ACA that retroactively goes back to impact 2016 taxes, we'll start seeing discussions on FWF in the next 12-18 months with the subject "I didn't have health insurance in 2016 and now I owe a penalty plus interest, please help!"

Even if congress and the president do away with the ACA in 2017 entirely, I don't see them going back and making that law change retroactive to 2016 as it relates to penalties for not having insurance.

  
Incorrect.  The mandate fine is different from general IRS debt in that it isn't enforceable for collections.  The only way for collection is to withhold if from your refund.

So I think your scare-story about the boogeyman IRS is going to come get folks is a bit far fetched. Also I don't see many threads on here stating that they forgot a 1099 and the IRS came at them several years later.  Typically one has to be audited, right?

IRS audits well under 1% of all returns.  And if you're making less than 200k/year it's a much lower percentage than even that.  So please stop the baseless fear mongering to further your political agenda.

  The 1% audit rate is the rate at which random people are chosen for an in-depth look at their financials. It does NOT include audits for incorrect tax forms that don't match employer-generated info. For example, if your tax return shows less income than your W-2's, your audit rate will be exactly 100%. The IRS computer catches that immediately, and nails you.
Similarly for the 1095c for the ACA. If there is no 1095c for you, you will automatically get the penalty against your next refund, regardless of Line 61 info, if you don't claim an exemption. 
 

Well I've never been audited but have had my transcripts requested before & the IT systems look like something out of the 1990s from the printouts. Also have over payed before and found out later but the IRS doesn't seem interested in finding those sorts of inaccuracies. I suspect forgetting to report a 1099 where the amount is large (>=$1k) will probably increase one's chances of a computer generated audit much more than just checking the box in TurboTax that you didn't have insurance because insurance wasn't affordable to you in your area.

Never heard of anyone getting audited on their 1095-C but I'd be interested in that as I'd love standing to sue the Federal government in court due to violating the privacy of my medical records/HIPAA.

LeveragedSpeculator said:   Well I've never been audited but have had my transcripts requested before & the IT systems look like something out of the 1990s from the printouts. Also have over payed before and found out later but the IRS doesn't seem interested in finding those sorts of inaccuracies. I suspect forgetting to report a 1099 where the amount is large (>=$1k) will probably increase one's chances of a computer generated audit much more than just checking the box in TurboTax that you didn't have insurance because insurance wasn't affordable to you in your area.

Never heard of anyone getting audited on their 1095-C but I'd be interested in that as I'd love standing to sue the Federal government in court due to violating the privacy of my medical records/HIPAA.

  It's not about the amount. I've received a letter when I was off by just a small amount, and then, after I paid, ANOTHER letter for 33 cents in interest. Computers don't care if it makes practical sense. They just notice the inaccuracy. You're not interacting with a human.
I guarantee you that a penalty of several hundred dollars for lack of health insurance will be caught, every time. Computers are very good at matching records to tax forms. Not filling in Line 61 makes absolutely no difference, except that you forego your chance to claim an exemption.

BTW: HIPAA has absolutely nothing to do with your employer informing the IRS about insurance status. It's about privacy of medical records, not insurance status. If that lawsuit had any merit, it would have been tried already.

The threat of audit is very real. It gives the IRS an opening to look through your entire return, even after the regular 3-year window is closed. It's willful and deceptive tax evasion, as opposed to just accidental evasion, since you're clearly trying to hide the fact that you have to pay the penalty. Given that the IRS knows anyway (from the lack of 1095c form), it's a really silly thing to do.

canoeguy1 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   Well I've never been audited but have had my transcripts requested before & the IT systems look like something out of the 1990s from the printouts. Also have over payed before and found out later but the IRS doesn't seem interested in finding those sorts of inaccuracies. I suspect forgetting to report a 1099 where the amount is large (>=$1k) will probably increase one's chances of a computer generated audit much more than just checking the box in TurboTax that you didn't have insurance because insurance wasn't affordable to you in your area.

Never heard of anyone getting audited on their 1095-C but I'd be interested in that as I'd love standing to sue the Federal government in court due to violating the privacy of my medical records/HIPAA.

  It's not about the amount. I've received a letter when I was off by just a small amount, and then, after I paid, ANOTHER letter for 33 cents in interest. Computers don't care if it makes practical sense. They just notice the inaccuracy. You're not interacting with a human.
I guarantee you that a penalty of several hundred dollars for lack of health insurance will be caught, every time. Computers are very good at matching records to tax forms. Not filling in Line 61 makes absolutely no difference, except that you forego your chance to claim an exemption.

BTW: HIPAA has absolutely nothing to do with your employer informing the IRS about insurance status. It's about privacy of medical records, not insurance status. If that lawsuit had any merit, it would have been tried already.

  
 I doubt that lawsuit has been tried already.  And also you can get insurance from places outside your employer.  But I'd love to dance it up with them in court if they would like to try for that or over an exemption as well.  I have a fund available for these sorts of battles and it is over-funded at the moment.

I don't think you understand what the executive order means nor what a budget means.  The IRS has limited means to pursue these cases--if you get a letter for cents in interest you could probably throw that in the trash bin.  I'd love to see the IRS try to take someone to tax court or garnish wages for a debt of less than five thousand dollars because I've never heard of it.  They strike settlements all the time with folks reducing their accrued liability to something they can afford to pay.

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   Well I've never been audited but have had my transcripts requested before & the IT systems look like something out of the 1990s from the printouts. Also have over payed before and found out later but the IRS doesn't seem interested in finding those sorts of inaccuracies. I suspect forgetting to report a 1099 where the amount is large (>=$1k) will probably increase one's chances of a computer generated audit much more than just checking the box in TurboTax that you didn't have insurance because insurance wasn't affordable to you in your area.

Never heard of anyone getting audited on their 1095-C but I'd be interested in that as I'd love standing to sue the Federal government in court due to violating the privacy of my medical records/HIPAA.

  It's not about the amount. I've received a letter when I was off by just a small amount, and then, after I paid, ANOTHER letter for 33 cents in interest. Computers don't care if it makes practical sense. They just notice the inaccuracy. You're not interacting with a human.
I guarantee you that a penalty of several hundred dollars for lack of health insurance will be caught, every time. Computers are very good at matching records to tax forms. Not filling in Line 61 makes absolutely no difference, except that you forego your chance to claim an exemption.

BTW: HIPAA has absolutely nothing to do with your employer informing the IRS about insurance status. It's about privacy of medical records, not insurance status. If that lawsuit had any merit, it would have been tried already.

  
 I doubt that lawsuit has been tried already.  And also you can get insurance from places outside your employer.  But I'd love to dance it up with them in court if they would like to try for that or over an exemption as well.  I have a fund available for these sorts of battles and it is over-funded at the moment.

  Have you heard the word "hubris" before?
  You know how many groups have tried to repeal the ACA in court? You know more than all of them? Really. Think about it before you post this stuff.

I doubt a proper court has reviewed whether it is in the IRS' purview to have access to people's private insurance status. If it has and has ruled it does then it's time for some new Supreme Court justices and for an amendment to the IRS charter that it is not to have this sort of purview going forward.

The Internal Revenue Service should be designed to collect receipts for government expenditures, not molding societal behavior according to grandiose collectivist visions.

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   Well I've never been audited but have had my transcripts requested before & the IT systems look like something out of the 1990s from the printouts. Also have over payed before and found out later but the IRS doesn't seem interested in finding those sorts of inaccuracies. I suspect forgetting to report a 1099 where the amount is large (>=$1k) will probably increase one's chances of a computer generated audit much more than just checking the box in TurboTax that you didn't have insurance because insurance wasn't affordable to you in your area.

Never heard of anyone getting audited on their 1095-C but I'd be interested in that as I'd love standing to sue the Federal government in court due to violating the privacy of my medical records/HIPAA.

  It's not about the amount. I've received a letter when I was off by just a small amount, and then, after I paid, ANOTHER letter for 33 cents in interest. Computers don't care if it makes practical sense. They just notice the inaccuracy. You're not interacting with a human.
I guarantee you that a penalty of several hundred dollars for lack of health insurance will be caught, every time. Computers are very good at matching records to tax forms. Not filling in Line 61 makes absolutely no difference, except that you forego your chance to claim an exemption.

BTW: HIPAA has absolutely nothing to do with your employer informing the IRS about insurance status. It's about privacy of medical records, not insurance status. If that lawsuit had any merit, it would have been tried already.

  
 I doubt that lawsuit has been tried already.  And also you can get insurance from places outside your employer.  But I'd love to dance it up with them in court if they would like to try for that or over an exemption as well.  I have a fund available for these sorts of battles and it is over-funded at the moment.

I don't think you understand what the executive order means nor what a budget means.  The IRS has limited means to pursue these cases--if you get a letter for cents in interest you could probably throw that in the trash bin.  I'd love to see the IRS try to take someone to tax court or garnish wages for a debt of less than five thousand dollars because I've never heard of it.  They strike settlements all the time with folks reducing their accrued liability to something they can afford to pay.

  I don't think you understand that administrations can change Six years is a long time. The courts can also force enforcement, if they rule against the EO. 
By all means, take the risk with your assets if you want. Throw IRS notices in the trash, pay huge lawyer fees if they take you to court etc. However, most people won't, so the Line 61 argument is meaningless.



 

LeveragedSpeculator said:   I doubt a proper court has reviewed whether it is in the IRS' purview to have access to people's private insurance status. If it has and has ruled it does then it's time for some new Supreme Court justices and for an amendment to the IRS charter that it is not to have this sort of purview going forward.

The Internal Revenue Service should be designed to collect receipts for government expenditures, not molding societal behavior according to grandiose collectivist visions.

  That's YOUR view. Until you become dictator, it's not the law. People in this country have to follow the law, as it's enforced and interpreted by the courts. 
Your view only makes a difference at the ballot box, not when arguing with the IRS.

canoeguy1 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   Well I've never been audited but have had my transcripts requested before & the IT systems look like something out of the 1990s from the printouts. Also have over payed before and found out later but the IRS doesn't seem interested in finding those sorts of inaccuracies. I suspect forgetting to report a 1099 where the amount is large (>=$1k) will probably increase one's chances of a computer generated audit much more than just checking the box in TurboTax that you didn't have insurance because insurance wasn't affordable to you in your area.

Never heard of anyone getting audited on their 1095-C but I'd be interested in that as I'd love standing to sue the Federal government in court due to violating the privacy of my medical records/HIPAA.

  It's not about the amount. I've received a letter when I was off by just a small amount, and then, after I paid, ANOTHER letter for 33 cents in interest. Computers don't care if it makes practical sense. They just notice the inaccuracy. You're not interacting with a human.
I guarantee you that a penalty of several hundred dollars for lack of health insurance will be caught, every time. Computers are very good at matching records to tax forms. Not filling in Line 61 makes absolutely no difference, except that you forego your chance to claim an exemption.

BTW: HIPAA has absolutely nothing to do with your employer informing the IRS about insurance status. It's about privacy of medical records, not insurance status. If that lawsuit had any merit, it would have been tried already.

  
 I doubt that lawsuit has been tried already.  And also you can get insurance from places outside your employer.  But I'd love to dance it up with them in court if they would like to try for that or over an exemption as well.  I have a fund available for these sorts of battles and it is over-funded at the moment.

I don't think you understand what the executive order means nor what a budget means.  The IRS has limited means to pursue these cases--if you get a letter for cents in interest you could probably throw that in the trash bin.  I'd love to see the IRS try to take someone to tax court or garnish wages for a debt of less than five thousand dollars because I've never heard of it.  They strike settlements all the time with folks reducing their accrued liability to something they can afford to pay.

  I don't think you understand that administrations can change Six years is a long time. The courts can also force enforcement, if they rule against the EO. 
By all means, take the risk with your assets if you want. Throw IRS notices in the trash, pay huge lawyer fees if they take you to court etc. However, most people won't, so the Line 61 argument is meaningless.
 

  
I certainly will--I'm unphased.  And remember if I'm spending "huge" lawyer fees guess who else is?  And like I said the IRS does NOT have an unlimited budget.  Some of their main IT systems date to the 1950s. So these stories about omniscient & omnipotent IRS sending notices for these small amounts sound _very suspicious_ to me.  I suppose it's possible, but from what I've heard and seen anecdotally it doesn't hardly happen unless you're engaging in serious under-reporting of income.

canoeguy1 said:   
 
  That's YOUR view. Until you become dictator, it's not the law. People in this country have to follow the law, as it's enforced and interpreted by the courts. 
Your view only makes a difference at the ballot box, not when arguing with the IRS.

  
Incorrect--we have a new President who has instructed the IRS not to enforce this penalty.  And we have a new congress as well, and they are going to have their own thoughts on the IRS' role in shaping American society.  Would you like to place a wager whose opinion they're going to be closer to--mine or yours, regarding the IRS' role?

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
cestmoi123 said:     Please stop advocating felony tax evasion to further your political agenda.

It's alright,
It's cestmoi123's collectivist fantasy!
It's alright,
It's Izarus' socialist dream!


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

The election happened close to 100 days ago.  And now there is a new EXECUTIVE ORDER, from the duly elected COMMANDER IN CHIEF:
The order directed the Health and Human Services secretary and the heads of other agencies to minimize the financial burden of Obamacare on Americans, states, insurers, health care providers and others to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Hahaha.  You lost, now it's payback time.

  You're pretty funny.  The Trump proposals would be clearly beneficial for me financially - nice big tax cut, plus no Cadillac tax on my extremely generous (and pricey) employer health insurance plan.  

cestmoi123 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   
cestmoi123 said:     Please stop advocating felony tax evasion to further your political agenda.

It's alright,
It's cestmoi123's collectivist fantasy!
It's alright,
It's Izarus' socialist dream!


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

The election happened close to 100 days ago.  And now there is a new EXECUTIVE ORDER, from the duly elected COMMANDER IN CHIEF:
The order directed the Health and Human Services secretary and the heads of other agencies to minimize the financial burden of Obamacare on Americans, states, insurers, health care providers and others to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Hahaha.  You lost, now it's payback time.

  You're pretty funny.  The Trump proposals would be clearly beneficial for me financially - nice big tax cut, plus no Cadillac tax on my extremely generous (and pricey) employer health insurance plan.  

  
...so far...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444374/income-tax-eliminat...

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
jerosen said:   
Was I supposed to start a thread to say that my incorrect filing (missing income from 1099) caused the IRS to audit me?     Because that happens a lot.

Its not very hard for the IRS to match 1099's and missing income on returns then send out mail audits.   I'm assuming its automatic and computerized at this point.

  
You're assuming quite a lot--aren't you?

If you don't have knowledge of this happening you shouldn't appear on these forums and purport to know it is.  An assumption in your statement would qualify it, your original one did not have that.

It's a bit like cestmoi123 talking about felony tax evasion, she has absolutely no idea what she is typing about but she is purporting to know so on here.  Perhaps using the broadest interpretation and the strictest enforcement and a boatload of other assumptions that are never true to try to further her political agenda.  It simply isn't true.

  Knowing that you're legally obliged to pay tax, but not doing so, is the very definition of tax evasion.  

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
 
  That's YOUR view. Until you become dictator, it's not the law. People in this country have to follow the law, as it's enforced and interpreted by the courts. 
Your view only makes a difference at the ballot box, not when arguing with the IRS.

  
Incorrect--we have a new President who has instructed the IRS not to enforce this penalty.  And we have a new congress as well, and they are going to have their own thoughts on the IRS' role in shaping American society.  Would you like to place a wager whose opinion they're going to be closer to--mine or yours, regarding the IRS' role?

  Can you see into the future? The 2018 election? 2020? 2022? All of those will pass before your return becomes ineligible for audit. Remember that Dems had a supermajority only 6 years ago. The courts may also have their word before then.

Again, if you want to bet your assets and risk an audit go for it. The majority of the population won't though, since they're not psychic. And that's what counts.

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
cestmoi123 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   
cestmoi123 said:     Please stop advocating felony tax evasion to further your political agenda.

It's alright,
It's cestmoi123's collectivist fantasy!
It's alright,
It's Izarus' socialist dream!


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

The election happened close to 100 days ago.  And now there is a new EXECUTIVE ORDER, from the duly elected COMMANDER IN CHIEF:
The order directed the Health and Human Services secretary and the heads of other agencies to minimize the financial burden of Obamacare on Americans, states, insurers, health care providers and others to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Hahaha.  You lost, now it's payback time.

  You're pretty funny.  The Trump proposals would be clearly beneficial for me financially - nice big tax cut, plus no Cadillac tax on my extremely generous (and pricey) employer health insurance plan.  

  
...so far...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444374/income-tax-eliminat...

  Would still be very beneficial to me, even as a blue-stater.  Thanks for your concern, though.  

LeveragedSpeculator said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
LeveragedSpeculator said:   Well I've never been audited but have had my transcripts requested before & the IT systems look like something out of the 1990s from the printouts. Also have over payed before and found out later but the IRS doesn't seem interested in finding those sorts of inaccuracies. I suspect forgetting to report a 1099 where the amount is large (>=$1k) will probably increase one's chances of a computer generated audit much more than just checking the box in TurboTax that you didn't have insurance because insurance wasn't affordable to you in your area.

Never heard of anyone getting audited on their 1095-C but I'd be interested in that as I'd love standing to sue the Federal government in court due to violating the privacy of my medical records/HIPAA.

  It's not about the amount. I've received a letter when I was off by just a small amount, and then, after I paid, ANOTHER letter for 33 cents in interest. Computers don't care if it makes practical sense. They just notice the inaccuracy. You're not interacting with a human.
I guarantee you that a penalty of several hundred dollars for lack of health insurance will be caught, every time. Computers are very good at matching records to tax forms. Not filling in Line 61 makes absolutely no difference, except that you forego your chance to claim an exemption.

BTW: HIPAA has absolutely nothing to do with your employer informing the IRS about insurance status. It's about privacy of medical records, not insurance status. If that lawsuit had any merit, it would have been tried already.

  
 I doubt that lawsuit has been tried already.  And also you can get insurance from places outside your employer.  But I'd love to dance it up with them in court if they would like to try for that or over an exemption as well.  I have a fund available for these sorts of battles and it is over-funded at the moment.

I don't think you understand what the executive order means nor what a budget means.  The IRS has limited means to pursue these cases--if you get a letter for cents in interest you could probably throw that in the trash bin.  I'd love to see the IRS try to take someone to tax court or garnish wages for a debt of less than five thousand dollars because I've never heard of it.  They strike settlements all the time with folks reducing their accrued liability to something they can afford to pay.

  I don't think you understand that administrations can change Six years is a long time. The courts can also force enforcement, if they rule against the EO. 
By all means, take the risk with your assets if you want. Throw IRS notices in the trash, pay huge lawyer fees if they take you to court etc. However, most people won't, so the Line 61 argument is meaningless.

  
I certainly will--I'm unphased.  And remember if I'm spending "huge" lawyer fees guess who else is?  And like I said the IRS does NOT have an unlimited budget.  Some of their main IT systems date to the 1950s. So these stories about omniscient & omnipotent IRS sending notices for these small amounts sound _very suspicious_ to me.  I suppose it's possible, but from what I've heard and seen anecdotally it doesn't hardly happen unless you're engaging in serious under-reporting of income.

  

This bit is probably a misinterpretation / misunderstanding about their continued use of COBOL.   

ETA : 
https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/20112007...
"The IBM mainframes reside at the Enterprise Computing Centers in Martinsburg, West Virginia (Martinsburg Computing Center), and Memphis, Tennessee (Memphis Computing Center). The mainframe platform at the Martinsburg Computing Center includes two IBM z/196 machines that are organized into logical partitions that are paired and connected so they can cooperate as one unit to provide workload balancing. The IBM environment at the Memphis Computing Center consists of one IBM z/9 mainframe. "
The IRS Unisys mainframe environment contains two Dorado 280 mainframe computers, with one located at the Martinsburg Computing Center and one at the Memphis Computing Center."

Thats all ~5-10 year old stuff 

 

cestmoi123 said:   Please stop advocating felony tax evasion to further your political agenda.
 
cestmoi123 said:   Knowing that you're legally obliged to pay tax, but not doing so, is the very definition of tax evasion.  

Boy this discussion would have ended a lot sooner if you guys just realized that when the ACA was passed, congress expressly forbade the IRS from using any enforcement action to collect the penalty owed. The only thing they could do was withhold a refund and apply it to the penalty. 

So it's not a felony, they can't throw you in jail for not paying it and they can't place any lien on your property or garnish your wages. 

As for tax evasion, well I guess it's just a voluntary tax because there's no enforcement action that the IRS can take besides withholding your refund. 

It's on page 131 of the law in case anyone doesn't want to read the whole thing.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ14...

  

JepJepJep said:   I do not see how this is the end of Obamacare. Americans love Obamacare. Nobody pays a penalty for failing to sign up for Medicare yet people always sign up for it. The same will be true for Obamacare.
 

 
I think this is completely different, since this likely means there will be no penalties for not getting insurance. Since the providers likely priced in a fair number of the profitable customers that fell into the "insurance isn't worth it but still cheaper than paying a penalty" that might not be there now, the companies are going to lose more money, leading to a combination of less choices and higher premiums.

I'm guessing this is intentional maneuvering by Republicans. Now that they have the power to repeal the ACA, they've realized how monumental of a task it is: The approval rating for the ACA is higher than ever, and major changes would be political suicide, minor changes would just be window dressing of what they've railed against for years.

So I think their new plan is to horribly cripple the ACA until people are ready to revolt against it. Only at that time will they be able to enact major changes.

Skipping 27 Messages...
With the former president's law, illegals were not covered.  OK, that provision of the existing law was not enforced.  But at least the provision was in the law!!!

Fast forward to the current RINO-supported legislation.  The RINOs didn't even bother to put such a provision in their legislation!!

What gripes me most is we supposedly, today, are putting Americans first.  That is specious.  Given the means-tested nature of this coverage, what I guarantee will happen is that there will be poor illegals who will have coverage, while thousands of American citizens go without.  What a sack of c**p.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017