[philman_36]

CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX.
Perhaps after you read this you might change your tune...

@ Brief for Respondents on Severability

6. THE ACT ALSO ESTABLISHES NEW TAX PENALTIES TO BE PAID BY NON-EXEMPTED INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LEVEL OF HEALTH COVERAGE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. 26 U.S.C. 5000A.

Sorry about the all caps. I used copy and paste and that's how it came up.

[philman_36]

Sorry about not pinging you as well. See reply 33.

[philman_36]

Ping to 33.

[aruanan]

CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX. Perhaps after you read this you might change your tune...

You don't remember at the time justices asking the attorney for the government how he was going to argue on one day that it was a tax and on another day that it was NOT a tax?

They maintained, because of the anti-injunction matter, that it was not a tax because that would have required the suit to be put off until at least 2014 when the first penalties were assessed. The only reason things proceeded as they did was because it was not considered to be a tax. So either way, they were screwed. So Roberts said, in order to avoid this problem and have his cake and eat it too, the penalty was not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction issue, but was a tax in order to rescue the law from being unconstitutional on the interstate commerce clause.

[aruanan]

CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX. Perhaps after you read this you might change your tune... THE ACT ALSO ESTABLISHES NEW TAX PENALTIES

When you fail to pay a tax to the IRS and they assess you a penalty, that penalty is not a tax.