Too Tax or Not Too Tax?

**SmokenScion** · 03-26-12, 04:51 PM

So it begins the Tax on the Brain. What is the definition of "is"? Can a law be a Tax? Is Alice on Drugs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/he...hen-it-is.html

After losing that argument in a lower court, the government’s lawyers switched positions to agree with the plaintiffs that the litigation was not blocked by the Anti-Injunction Act. But in its brief to the Supreme Court, the administration argued that while the penalty was not a tax that would fall under the Anti-Injunction Act, it should be viewed as a tax when the court considers on Tuesday whether the mandate is permitted under Congress’s broad authority to levy taxes.

Let the legal mind-fuck Ensue!

**iravedic** · 03-26-12, 05:02 PM

It's actually a fairly interesting legal point. The jurisdiction of a Federal Court to hear a contest regarding a "Tax" is limited to so called refund claims - in that the matter can only be addressed after the tax and all interest are paid and the party sues the government for a refund. In this case the issue is the mechanism to ensure compliance with the coverage mandate is a penalty assessed through the tax system. Under federal tax law a penalty is technically not a "tax" until it has been assessed and therefor would not allow a suit to be filed until the penalty was imposed, paid and not refunded - otherwise the US Gov't would be enjoined from issuing a penalty.

They are aruging that it is a tax for consitutional power purposes though - which grants Congress VERY broad powers to levy taxes. Essentially they are arguing points in which the word "tax" has 2 different legal connotations.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-26-12, 05:04 PM

Good post. I dont know how i missed this article. My favorite line from it.

“Let’s characterize it correctly,” Judge Hudson remarked. “They denied it was a tax. The president denied it. Was he trying to deceive the people?”

**deathgodusmc** · 03-26-12, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by iravedic

It's actually a fairly interesting legal point. The jurisdiction of a Federal Court to hear a contest regarding a "Tax" is limited to so called refund claims - in that the matter can only be addressed after the tax and all interest are paid and the party sues the government for a refund. In this case the issue is the mechanism to ensure compliance with the coverage mandate is a penalty assessed through the tax system. Under federal tax law a penalty is technically not a "tax" until it has been assessed and therefor would not allow a suit to be filed until the penalty was imposed, paid and not refunded - otherwise the US Gov't would be enjoined from issuing a penalty.

They are aruging that it is a tax for consitutional power purposes though - which grants Congress VERY broad powers to levy taxes. Essentially they are arguing points in which the word "tax" has 2 different legal connotations.

I just dont see why anyone would want to wait until april 16th to put an end to this debate. By then it will have cost millions of people money they did not want to spend or did not have to spend. Either do it right or shut it the fuck down.

**SmokenScion** · 03-26-12, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I just dont see why anyone would want to wait until april 16th to put an end to this debate. By then it will have cost millions of people money they did not want to spend or did not have to spend. Either do it right or shut it the fuck down.

SO since you brought up Doing it right. What might you suggest?

**deathgodusmc** · 03-26-12, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

SO since you brought up Doing it right. What might you suggest?

I believe i stated that before but it has been awhile. I no longer have the break down i was putting together to have a federally funded health care program but if it was me this would be a federally funded program. I went thru the budget before and got to within a believe a couple hundred million without really sacrificing anything of importance. The largest chuck was from the defense department and it didnt include getting rid of troops or branches. It was mostly allowing the military its own purchasing power versus being forced to use NALCOMIS. However it would take people in office that actually give a rats ass about the american people and not the corp fags filling their pockets.

**iravedic** · 03-27-12, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I just dont see why anyone would want to wait until april 16th to put an end to this debate. By then it will have cost millions of people money they did not want to spend or did not have to spend. Either do it right or shut it the fuck down.

Going the tax paid route would take several years. The law would have to be fully implemented, someone would then not have coverage per the mandate, would be issued a penalty, they would then go through an administrative process, pay the penalty and then finally pay the penalty. No they are in a position where they have standing to raise the suit, and the courts now have jurisdiction over the dispute. Given that the full implementation is in 2014, the 1st penalty would be issued in 2015 and then 9-12 months later the suit could be filed. So your really looking at a case hitting the USSC earliest Oct 2017.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-27-12, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by iravedic

Going the tax paid route would take several years. The law would have to be fully implemented, someone would then not have coverage per the mandate, would be issued a penalty, they would then go through an administrative process, pay the penalty and then finally pay the penalty. No they are in a position where they have standing to raise the suit, and the courts now have jurisdiction over the dispute. Given that the full implementation is in 2014, the 1st penalty would be issued in 2015 and then 9-12 months later the suit could be filed. So your really looking at a case hitting the USSC earliest Oct 2017.

Yeah i get that but its still stupid. I like the argument they have going on it. If it wasnt a tax when you were pumping it into everyones head then it isnt a tax now in court.