[Auntie Dem]

You missed my point entirely. There is no income tax on the ACA. There is only a penalty for not having coverage. You cannot have a legally enforceable penalty under 6671 if there is no tax which is the basis for calculating the penalty. Just bexause Roberts called a penalty a tax doesn’t make it a tax. The ACA penalty is stand alone and IMHO illegal. 6671 does not justify it. Now, how about you put down the bong.

[Talisker]

You missed my point entirely. There is no income tax on the ACA. There is only a penalty for not having coverage. You cannot have a legally enforceable penalty under 6671 if there is no tax which is the basis for calculating the penalty. Just bexause Roberts called a penalty a tax doesn’t make it a tax. The ACA penalty is stand alone and IMHO illegal. 6671 does not justify it. Now, how about you put down the bong.

Your only point is deliberate obfuscation. You are reversing dependencies, blithely dismissing the existence of the income tax and reversing Roberts own ruling in order to try to confuse people. I explained these issues clearly in the article. To claim that the ACA is not dependently linked to income tax liability is a bald-faced, obvious and arrogant lie and the technique of a crude shill.

You're a waste of my time.

[cynwoody]

There is no income tax on the ACA.

Absolutely false.