Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Harvard Health Policy Review on the IRS’s Illegal ObamaCare Taxes
Townhall.com ^ | August 11, 2013 | Michael F. Cannon

Posted on 08/11/2013 9:35:58 AM PDT by Kaslin

In the just-released Spring 2013 issue of Harvard Health Policy Review, I have an article titled “ObamaCare: The Plot Thickens.”

The article examines the IRS rule that purportedly implements ObamaCare’s tax credits, but actually violates that statute by taxing, borrowing, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars contrary to Congress’ explicit instructions.

The article is a less-technical version of my Health Matrix article (coauthored with Jonathan Adler, “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA.”)

Here’s an excerpt:

In broad daylight, the Internal Revenue Service is attempting to tax, borrow, and spend [roughly] $800 billion—contrary to both the express language of the PPACA and congressional intent. Thus in addition to other abuses that have recently come to light, the IRS is attempting to tax millions of employers and individuals without congressional authorization…

In this still-unfolding narrative, the Obama administration’s actions are triply anti-democratic. First, the IRS is violating a direct constraint that popularly elected legislators placed on the executive branch. Second, it is violating that duly enacted statute for the purpose of denying popularly elected state officials the vetoes Congress gave them over certain provisions of the statute. And third, it is violating the statute because administration officials either cannot fathom or will not accept that Congress meant to do what it clearly did.

Obama administration officials continually emphasize that the PPACA is “the law of the land.” That remains to be seen, in more ways than one.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0carenightmare; healthcare; irsobamacare; obamacare; obamacaretaxes; taxes

1 posted on 08/11/2013 9:35:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2 posted on 08/11/2013 9:44:52 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

fl


3 posted on 08/11/2013 9:52:42 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (Christian is as Christian does - by their fruits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
IOW, they, the Tyrant Regime, are deliberately breaking the law, flaunting Congress' intentions and doing what they damned well please! For two years now, they have been lying, obfuscating, hiding and just plain making shit up as they go along.

They have been making unlawful decisions about who has to pay what for what, still more lying, delaying legally required implementation for some and requiring it for others, exempting special groups (themselves included) from any of the provisions, and have generally be playing the world's most fantastic and unbelievable game of "Who's the Biggest Liar?" in all the world!

We have a little two-bit, tin-horned, affirmative action puppet in charge of this country and not a damned soul in this country will lift a finger to stop his tyrant ass. What is wrong with you people? Our forefathers would have these interlopers cowering in their DC refuge besieged by angry, armed Americans.

4 posted on 08/11/2013 10:07:51 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

‘Subject to the Jurisdiction’

Are YOU subject to THEIR jurisdiction?

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter4.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm


5 posted on 08/11/2013 10:50:44 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

bump


6 posted on 08/11/2013 11:17:55 AM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phockthis

Never said a word about that I can recall. Far as I’m concerned the whole damn law is illegal top to bottom.


7 posted on 08/11/2013 11:35:39 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

It’s not so much about the 16th amendment as it is ANY statutory law.

You are only subject to their laws because you accept their benefits.


“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424


8 posted on 08/11/2013 12:29:45 PM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There are always fights about “standing”, but I think this would be a much easier thing to handle.

All we need to do is find ONE person who claims the tax credit, and then file a report with the IRS as a “whistleblower”. People who turn in known tax cheats to the IRS get money. If the IRS refuses to pay up the 10% finder’s fee, you would have standing to sue because you would suffer harm.

Anybody who can get access to the list of people claiming tax credits or subsidies in federal exchanges can be a whistleblower, so we could have thousands of people suing to collect.


9 posted on 08/11/2013 2:01:25 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


10 posted on 08/11/2013 2:02:01 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
These guys are the same ones who negotiated Obamacare in principle for the Democratic leadership in 2008. Their counterpart was a scholar from Cato. Both negotiators were women Ph.D.'s in their 60's or 70's. None of their goings-on was reported until Howell Raines wrote an article for the October, 2008, Conde Nast Portfolio. Then nothing of those conversations was discussed publicly.
11 posted on 08/12/2013 12:33:47 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson