{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Term Paper

The irs website gives a calculation to determine the

Info iconThis preview shows pages 23–26. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The IRS website gives a calculation to determine the payment which begins with the number of full-time employees employed for that year. That number is then subtracted by 30 and multiplied by $2,000 (www.irs.gov). A number of the preceding pages and paragraphs have spoken about certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act and their impact on individuals, corporations, and the tax system. While certain provisions have already taken effect, others will not take effect for a few more years. In March of the year 2012, the Supreme Court argued the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 109 AFTR 2d 2012-2563. This was a case brought to the Supreme Court level by 26 states, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business. These plaintiffs were challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act as well as the Medicaid expansion the act called for. Up until the Supreme Court decision, the provisions of the Affordable Care Act and all the new taxes that would take effect were in jeopardy. In a decision that went 5-4 in favor of the individual mandate, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was indeed constitutional under Congress’ constitutional power to levy taxes. The opponents of the individual mandate were using the Tax Anti-Injunction Act as a basis for why the mandate was unconstitutional. According to the Anti-Injunction Act, “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person” (26 U. S. C. §7421(a)). The main idea of this Act is that a citizen of the United Stated who is required to pay a tax but does not believe the tax is accurate or fair, must first pay that tax before they can sue for a refund. In his opinion with the affirming side of the court, Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress did “not intend the payment of the individual mandate to be treated as a ‘tax’ for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.” In the wording of the Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate is referred to as a penalty, not a tax and therefore cannot determine whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution. The court describes in its opinion why the individual mandate could not be sustained under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause given to Congress under the powers of the Constitution: “The Constitution grants Congress the power to ‘regulate Commerce.’ The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give authority....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page23 / 33

The IRS website gives a calculation to determine the...

This preview shows document pages 23 - 26. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online