To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.

Discussion:Voiding of new health care law yesterday

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> Voiding of new health care law yesterday


Jossiecpa (talk|edits) said:

1 February 2011
Although it will still need to make its way to the Supreme Court, the federal judge yesterday struck down the entire Obamacare bill. In his ruling he stated that his declaratory judgment is equivalent to an injunction that the administration can no longer enforce this bill.

In light of that, I'm curious how that affects the status of all the health care tax credits that we'll be taking on our clients' returns this year, should the Supreme Court side with the states and declare the bill void due to the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate clause. Will the IRS still allow those credits on the returns where they were taken, or will they require taxpayers to pay that credit back?

I'm just curious and thinking out loud. Certainly no one knows what the Supreme Court will do, so are you going to still take the credits and assume that the IRS will still honor those credits?

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

1 February 2011
That's a good question and I can't give you a certain answer. I think the judge thought what he did had the effect of an injunction. The Administration is taking the position that it did not. From what I've read so far, most law professors seem to agree with the Administration that it does not have the effect of an injunction.

I'll have to wait for something more final to be posted on the web or on this site.

DaveFogel (talk|edits) said:

1 February 2011
Keep in mind that two U.S. district courts have ruled that the individual mandate in the Health Care Act is constitutional, and two have ruled it unconstitutional, and that of the two that ruled it unconstitutional, one court (Virginia) ruled that the individual mandate is severable, and that the remainder of the Act survives.

As a result, at present, I recommend going ahead and claiming the credits. Even if the entire Act is ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I'm willing to bet that Congress will enact legislation that will not require employers to pay back the tax credits.

Rosco (talk|edits) said:

1 February 2011
Crow, are you sure that you have read that most law professors agree with the administration?

I find that hard to believe?

Where did you read such a thing?

Was it some kind of survey?

I would like to read it?

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

1 February 2011
I'm speaking of the narrow issue of whether this decision has the effect of an injunction.

I read that on the daily kos which explicitly mentioned law professors. I think it was posted yesterday. There was a fellow at the Cato Institute that disagreed with the daily kos (I think), but he did not identify himself as a law professor (not that it matters). I also checked the Constitutional law professors blog and they just had a blurb about the case and no real analysis, however, those particular professors are bad about sleeping late.

Judge Vinson declared the whole law unconsitutional so it would be hard to say exactly what law the Administration is implementing. Nevertheless, these professors and experts are mighty particular and if they don't see an actual injunction, they won't buy it. The Administration's position is that they will continue to implement the law, at least as of this morning.

P.S. I stand corrected, the Daily Kos mentions "legal experts" only one of whom was a law professor it seems. Timothy Jost from Washington & Lee University. Daily Kos posted Mon Jan 31, 2011 at 05:00:04 PM PST. I am responding for lawyer Crow who is having his nails manicured.

Rosco (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
Polly, OK now I understand. Crow was just using patter. (Patter is a made up story, told in order to get a specific response).

I had a hunch that it was just patter.

If there had been such a survey, then I would have known about it.

So, the belief that "most" (that means more than 50%) of the US law professors agree with the admininstration ...only exists in Crow's mind.

I wish Crow would not say those things. I shouldn't have to spend time going through all this.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
From Above:

QUOTE: "That's a good question and I can't give you a certain answer."

QUOTE: "I'll have to wait for something more final to be posted on the web or on this site."

Keep in mind, the only question I'm addressing here is whether the opinion amounts to an injunction. Sorry if in your opinion my answer was patter, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. We all know this is going to the Supreme Court anyway on the larger issue of the Commerce Clause, or at least it certainly appears that way.

I'm sure more law professors and other legal experts will be posting their opinions on the net. Enough opinions to make us all happy.

TexCPA (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
Here is the text of the ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[1]

...the “greatest threat to state autonomy is, and has long been, Congress’s spending power” and “the states will be at the mercy of Congress so long as there are no meaningful limits on its spending power

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

Under Dole, there are four restrictions on Congress’ Constitutional spending power: (1) the spending must be for the general welfare; (2) the conditions must be stated clearly and unambiguously; (3) the conditions must bear a relationship to the purpose of the program; and 4) the conditions imposed may not require states “to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.”

...while the state joined Medicaid voluntarily, it had grown to depend on federal funds and “now has no choice but to remain in the program in order to prevent a collapse of its medical system...

very interesting to research and understand the CONSTITUTUIN and the history of the COMMERCE CLAUSE [2]

TexCPA 04:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

LH2004 (talk|edits) said:

February 2, 2011
I'm not sure what there is to debate. See the second-to-last paragraph of the order. Declaratory judgment is granted, injunctive relief is denied.

Here's a bold prediction from this rather extremist libertarian/Federalist Society member/commerce clause strict constructionist/Obamacare opponent: the argument that it's unconstitutional won't manage to get more than 3 votes at the Supreme Court. Until we had multiple rulings this way, I didn't think the Supreme Court would even take such a weak case. The individual mandate is obviously constitutional under the Commerce Clause; and, separately, though somewhat less obviously, it's constitutional as a tax, or else we have big problems all over the Code. It was controversial when the Supreme Court said the Commerce Clause didn't reach things like regulating wife-beating, or bringing guns to school; this, unlike those, is all about a commercial topic.

I hope y'all will pardon my mention of my political views, as it's just for the purpose of pointing out that I'm not taking this position on the Constitution just because it helps my cause.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
I don't think you are stating political views because they are almost inextricably entwined with these cases. This question was originally posted today by a tax practitioner, so it seems relevant as well.

For what it's worth, this is also in the opinion (I got this quote from a blog tonight so keep that in mind), this is shown as a quote from the opinion:

“…there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added)."

I have not read the opinion other than snippets I've seen on the web. However, as of this morning at least, the Obama Administration stated that they will continue to implement the legislation (and theoretically I guess the states could file an action for contempt).

Regarding the Commerce Clause, I agree that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold Obamacare. The so-called conservative justices have their own reasons to uphold this law so they can't be counted upon to vote against it when/if it gets to the Supreme Court. But I can't really predict what will actually happen becuase this thing is in play on more than one front.

Rosco (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
LH, I read your above political views.

If they are not moved to the chat forum soon, then I will have an idea why.

Trillium (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
Well, it's not like somebody's going to open up a discussion with this title and be surprised to find a politically-edged comment or two; they wouldn't be coming from out of the blue as is the case with most of the discussions that get moved to chat. Also, it was my view that LH's intro actually served well to indicate that the remainder of the post was an non-ideological viewpoint, which is what I believe the OP was asking for.

However, it's now been more than a day since the OP posed the question, and I'm sure that many are itching for this to get moved over to the Chat forum so that they can post what they've really been thinking, so - here it goes.

Thanks to all of those who helped to keep the focus of this discussion on the tax question at hand for so long.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
I think Trillium was wise to move it.

People may not like it but LH2004's comments and the reference to libertarian/Federalist society's opinion but I think it states the current understanding of the limits (or lack of limits) of the Commerce Clause and what is likely to happen with this case or cases when they get to the Supreme Court (if they do). His statement is simply not overtly political, though it may be a good deal more intelligent than what you normally read on the internet. LH2004 is not making this up.

People should keep in mind, it's not just the U.S. Congress that wants to do what it wants regarding commerical matters, it's big business too. Obamacare is a commercial law. Modern big business is NOT for states rights when it comes to business.

Modern big business does not want to screw around with (and lobby) 50 state legislatures when they can lobby the U.S. Congress for commerical, banking and regulatory laws that apply nationally and that usually preempt state laws. And this is the real reason that some conservative justices will probably vote to uphold Obamacare because these Justices don't want to do anything that will hurt big business by boxing them in with a more restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause. Of course, this is my opinion.

The Supreme Court could prove me wrong and agree with Vinson's opinion or a similar opinion. The states DO have a long tradition of regulating private insurance companies and that could put a wrinkle in things. We'll see.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 2, 2011
Imagine if/when the Pres demands that all taxpayers use Turbotax to file their returns. What say you then? No problems with Executive authority? It's exactly the same issue. After all, we must file returns, no biggie in mandating how, right? Right???

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
Left, Left, JR1.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
The biggest group fretting about an adverse Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is big business. These modern businesses do not want to deal with the 50 states and 50 different sets of laws on every commerical topic. I will admit however (there is no reason not to admit it because it's true) that insurance has been traditionally regulated by the states. It's not in the Constitution that it has be regulated by the states as far as I know.

Big federal government has big friends in stamping out states rights, so I don't know if I would call this all a leftwing issue.

TexCPA (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
First health insurance, then federally mandated auto insurance, then home insurance, then federally mandated Doctor, Attorney, and CPA/EA insurance. I'll bet that someday there will be federally mandated 'school' insurance. That way when you are declared 'stupid' (by the courts) each citizen will be able to sue the school they graduated from.

LOL TexCPA 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
It would not totally break my heart of Obamacare was totally repealed, but not because I think private health insurance as it exists now is a great thing.

Private insurance makes money two ways: a) collecting premiums; and b) denying claims.

Doctors and hospitals and patients spend a fortune playing the "Gotcha" game with insurance companies. They have to keep permanent staffs just to keep up with all these contracts.

As I was saying to someone else here today, I would love to go to a private consierge doctor who made house calls. I would love that. I don't LOVE the idea of a government program.

However, we are talking about sick people here. In such matters, what's good for all has to play a part in my opinion. Therefore, in my opinion, single payor universal health is a way to make the best of an imperfect situation. Not because I love it but because it's the best for the most people.

One option may be to have universal health/single payor but give every American one shot to opt out. But if you opt out, it's absolutely final. You are on your own in the private market from then on with one exception: if you opt out, you MUST buy public coverage for the ER room. Everyone would be on the public program until age 25 say, and then they get their one time choice whether to opt out.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

2 February 2011
Funny but when the Feds mandate something, people jump up and down, but here in NJ, Chris Christie (and Corzine, Codey, McGreevey, Whitman before him) mandate that you must carry auto insurance with this ID card in your car. If stopped you must produce it. I suspect this is the same in other states also. And this supposedly is good because it isn't Washington demanding this.

Then my mortgage company mandates I have flood insurance though I am almost a half mile from water, and that sucks 1800 a year from my pocket. And this is a conventional, non-FHA mortgage.

The real irony of this situation is that our Guv wants the Feds to help pay for the snow removal costs because we have run out of the budgeted amount.

TexCPA (talk|edits) said:

3 February 2011
Re - auto insurance, Texas has finally gone hi-tech, yes auto insurance is state mandated (see here for the differences [3] ). However, now in Texas the 'database' is updated, so that when you get pulled over, the officier already knows wether you have current coverage or not. TerxasSure [4]

D&T - everyone knows that SNOW is MANDATED by the COMMERCE CLAUSE, there is just no clarity in the SPENDING CLAUSE

This will probably end up much like the GAS TAX, some states will be a PAY IN state and others will be a PAY OUT state.

TexCPA 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

3 February 2011
So there must be states where insurance is not mandated, else why do I pay 'uninsured motorist' premium on our policy?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

3 February 2011
Even in states with mandatory auto insurance, many people buy it just long enough to purchase their tag (that's 'licence plate' for all you non-Southerners), then cancel it. Even though the state is notified that the insurance has been cancelled, all they do is send a letter to the car owner stating that insurance is required. There is no other policing that I've seen.

I've seen statistics that say that as many as one in five vehicles on the road aren't covered by insurance. You get hit by one of these drivers, you'll want 'uninsured motorist' coverage.

Jossiecpa (talk|edits) said:

3 February 2011
Interesting discussion and an interesting dilemma with respect to the implementation of the health care bill. I read an article yesterday that talked about the Arizona immigration law, and how a federal district court struck down portions of that law, and now Arizona cannot implement those portions until it goes through the appeal process.

The article points out that there is nothing different about Judge Vinson's ruling from the Arizona ruling, especially since he did include in his opinion the comments referred to above by CrowJD: “…there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.”

Also, this writer referenced the fact that the Dept of the Interior was just fined for being in contempt of a district court's order regarding the lifting of the Gulf Coast moratorium. When the judge ruled that they could not issue the drilling moratorium, the DOI immediately issued a new moratorium (which was supposedly rescinded this past fall? Not sure of all the facts of this . . .). However, they were just fined and held in contempt of court, and ordered to pay oil company attorney fees due to not following a district judge's order.

So, his opinion is that these court decision do mean something and do have implications.

This opinion was written by someone who considered themselves an unbiased legal expert, not writing from a liberal or conservative perspective. I wish I could remember where I saw that, as I found it while internet surfing while stuck at home yesterday as a result of the Chicago blizzard.

But it was interesting as he discussed the fact that he strongly believed that the Obama Administration would be in contempt of court if they continued to implement the bill. I'm certainly no legal expert and haven't done any kind of research on this, but I do think that there are serious implications if it is true that the administration truly is enjoined from implementing this bill until an appeals court or the supreme court decides otherwise.

I truly hope for a quick resolution to this matter, as I think it is a mess and we need some quick resolutions on this asap.

Anyways, just my thoughts.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

3 February 2011
So who wants to be the person who cancels the health insurance of a 24-25 year old job-seeker who is included on Dad's policy? Or cancel policies of those who now qualify who didn't before? I mean that it is hard to have 'half a loaf.' And if these benefits are halted, what happens if the eventual decision accepts the plan?

Taocpa (talk|edits) said:

3 February 2011
I have to say the only things in the Healthcare Bill I thought worthy provisions to keep was the provisions to keep were not denying insurance for pre-existing conditions and caps on insurance. Some people who changed insurance companies were not responsible for their illnesses, someone else or their own body was the issue. It was simply not fair for insurance companies to deny coverage for a pre-existing condition. Also, for some people treatment, just expensive.

However, the administration's original argument was this "tax" was not a "tax." Then it was. He also ran on a pledge not to raise taxes on 95% of all Americans, yet this bill pretty much does. When Bush I raised taxes, he was run out of town on a rail. Why the mainstream press is not challenging Obama on this is beyond me.

D&T, by the way, you are not required to have a car, there is public transportation available. That is why states require car insurance. Flood insurance is always required by your mortgage company to protect their investment. Since you live a half mile from the ocean, I guarantee you live in what they call a "flood plain". The chances of flooding from the ocean during a hurricane, tropical storm, nor'easter, winter storm, whatever, is pretty good, even a half mile from the ocean, but I think you already know that.

As far as the Supremes go, I hear from court watchers out here that it's 4-4 with Kennedy being the swing vote. At least that is what I have seen and heard from people who know more than I do about this stuff.

I don't see this ending well for the administration given the stall tactics I saw they were using today.

Tom

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 3, 2011
Not to mention the tale that you wouldn't have to change insurance or pay more for it. Already, we're seeing 30-40% increases in premiums, and that's LONG before all the other costs come to play in a couple years. And the fact is, with the required coverage and cost, and the minimal penalty for failure to cover employees, the de facto deal is that companies will hand over all the money to the gov to run the insurance programs and drop existing coverage.

Minor little details I know. Comes from not reading or discussing the bills that are passed.

Smokeytax (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2011
What ever happened to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions for a year or so after you buy the policy? That seemed to make a lot of sense in that you couldn't expect to wait until you were sick to buy insurance.

Jeff-Ohio (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgQUhDHP7UI

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2011
Smokey, the underwriting is far more intense than that. If you know any health insurance salespeople, talk to them. This is particularly applicable with individual and small group policies. You don't get the policy AT ALL, much less have time for a year to run.

It goes down to the underwriting level. For instance, some insurers will not even talk to people who have taken an anti-depressant one time. They just won't even underwrite it from the get go.

Same with diabetes: a growing number just won't underwrite you period on a small policy. I am not asking anyone here to take my word for it. Ask an honest salesperson.

These are just examples. These are just two conditions.

Now, some idependent agents will work with you to try to find a plan, but the available plans are shrinking. Take a diabetic: it's far better to be on medication than it is to end up as a trainwreck in the ER. Same with hypertension. Far cheaper for society to do it the rational way.

And many people are noticing that ERs are just closing down. So no matter how much money you have and no matter if you ARE insured, you could sill die from a heart attack during transport to a hospital further away.

You can't isolate this among poeple on the wrong side of the tracks: it will spread and it will get worse.

The reason that I am optimistic that in the long term we will have a rational universal single payor health system in America is that the number of uninsured will continue to grow. When the number reaches a critical mass, the law will write itself. I don't know what the number will be: 150 million? I don't know.

I will say this again about the Obama program: they tried. They left the useless private insurers in and that increased the complexity and the cost, but they tried. It would not hurt my feelings if the whole thing went away because it would speed the process to get a rational universal single payor model. The uninsured are not going away.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2011
Yes and Crow as you have pointed out before many very small Scd C's that can ONLY exist because the other spouse has good health insurance with an employer that still offers good beneifts.

If that spouse is a state or local worker and get's laid off (as millions will over the next 5 years) then the Scd. C owner has no insurance unless he can buy an idividual policy, so individual underwriting comes into play.

People may see it as good that states and localities are cutting the payroll (it might BE good), but there will be a consequence far larger than just the loss to these people directly. These burger chains and part-time jobs are not known for offering benefits and cost-sharing.

Smokeytax (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2011
Wow - food for thought. I think one thing that will come is that we'll just have to grow up and accept the fact that everyone can't have all care possible no matter what the cost - there are limits.

I always say I hope I live long enough to see how it all turns out.

PollyAdler (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2011
At the very bottom I don't not think this is a right or left issue. It's involves a lot of things: our trade policy, our economic policies. It's very complex.

However, at the end of the day, I think the calculus will be the number of uninsured (and their self-interest) and that will write the law, whatever it turns out to be. I don't see our economy generating MORE people with health insurance and benefits, I see it generating less.

So what will happen when the former middle class loses it's health insurance?

"Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self-interest." Napoleon.

Not right or left. Not liberal news or conservative news. Not talk radio. But fear and self-interest.

Smokeytax (talk|edits) said:

4 February 2011
More food for thought - "complex" sure hits the nail on the head.

Honestly, I think that when the inevitable occurs and we get away from the blank check mentality with regard to the cost of medical care, for many of us, our health might not suffer. Rather it could actually get better.

Fear and self-interest might jar us into looking for more prevention via lifestyle improvements (which I certainly can stand some of).

Back to work.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

6 February 2011
I was reading about the part of the law which 'closes the doughnut hole' in Part D plans. Once the insuree reaches that point, the drug companies are supposed to give those needing the drugs a 50% discount for brand name drugs, beginning this year. I would doubt that any of them will take Judge Vinson's decision as a reason to drop this, but you can get an idea that unwinding something might be more difficult than thought. The Rube Goldberg construction of the law could mean the classic baby and bathwater situation if rejected. And I can't see the House and Senate Majorities putting the good things back where they found them.

JAD (talk|edits) said:

7 February 2011
I hope they ditch the whole thing immediately before it becomes more entrenched and we as a country become even more accustomed to turning to Washington (translate, incompetent politicians) to take care of us (translate, drive the country to bankruptcy and us individually further into dependency).

But we all have a better sense of finances than most of the taxpayers. By that I don't mean to say that we are smarter than many others, just that our work lends itself to a different look at this issue. How about if we come up with some concrete ideas? Here are some of mine:

1. Eliminate the FDA, which serves to greatly increase the cost of developing drugs. Instead, institute an open and detailed "adverse drug events" database. Any company that doesn't promptly post any issues doesn't get fined. Instead, the execs go to jail. Trust docs and individuals to make the best decisions that they can. This would be especially useful for drugs that treat life-threatening conditions. Then, Avastin would not cost $90,000 per year. Drugs will cost less to develop, insurance costs will come down. Funds are freed up to provide some community health care (no longer funding FDA)

2. Institute malpractice reform. (Help control what docs need to charge to earn a profit)

3. Eliminate defacto subsidies of toxic substances. For example, I read somewhere that the real cost of a pack of cigarettes, factoring in the health care etc, was $150 per pack. I have no idea if that's true, but I'm sure that the real cost is more than what a smoker is paying. It fries me that I am essentially subsidizing someone else's bad habit. If it costs $150 per pack, that's what the person should pay. Extra funds would go toward the community health care.

4. Same theory applied to booze. If that means that I have to pay $25 for a mediocre glass of wine, so be it.

5. Same theory for what some people call food. If we didn't evolve to digest it, it shouldn't be in our digestive systems. Super-tax "food" that really came from a laboratory. If that results in $50 twinkies, so be it.

6. We can't really provide a discount for those who exercise because it would require a crossing of boundaries that should not be allowed in this so-called free country. But we could super tax that which keeps us - adults and kids - from moving our bodies. Super tax anything with a screen: my computer, my cell phone, the kids' idiot x-box. Same with Ipods, which now have so many diversions on them the kids never have to even look up. You get my point. Fund community health care.

7. Of course, after implementing 3 - 6, the addiction and obesity rate of our country might decline. Then health care costs might decline. Who would have thought?

8. As Smokeytax said, we need to grow up and accept the fact that we're not all going to get all care possible regardless of cost, and we should start having an adult conversation about that. Obama said something like that, and people started screaming about death panels. That's right, call it whatever you want. We need to prioritize. I know of a child who has RSV, a lung condition that if properly treated should go away but if not properly treated, will cause a lifetime of problems. The parents don't have health insurance and the kid isn't getting the proper care. Contrast this with the man pictured on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle last year. He cost the city $150,000 last year. He is one of the frequent flyers who won't go to AA. Does anyone think that these priorities are correct?

Your ideas?

JAD (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2011
Another idea:

8. Redirect funding for corn subsidies (corn being the source of high fructose corn syrup, another source of ill-health) to community health care.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2011
Farmers vote.

JAD (talk|edits) said:

8 February 2011
Here's the thing. Some of the stuff that I think is a good idea works against me personally. On the large issue, if we are going to get out of this huge fiscal disaster, we are all going to have to take a hit. Health care is just one element of the larger picture. It's like you saying that taxpayers should be ethical. We all have to be ethical in making good, long-term decisions, or we as a country will never again be what we were. IMO.
  • The following two posts have been moved from a tax forum discussion about calculation of the health care credits, since they addressed the topic of this discussion, more than they topic of that discussion:

ScottCPA (talk|edits) said:

13 February 2011
I thought I just read that this tax credit was part of the health care bill that just got challenged and rescinded.... so no more small business health insurance credit??

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

13 February 2011
Scott, there have been four federal rulings so far: two for, two against. Don't expect anything to actually happen until the SC weighs in on it. I'm going forward as though it won't get repealed, although I hope it does.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools