In Uncategorized on 10/09/2019 at 15:57

Don’t panic, reader, this blog has not gone political. If you want philippics and polemics, there’s no shortage elsewhere, and I’ve contributed my share. But not here. Not in this blog.

The Constitutional issue raised by Todd Ross & Millie Vilaplana, Docket No. 19705-18S, filed 10/9/19, concerns that persnickety Affordable Care Act of 2010, specifically Todd’s & Mollie’s Premium Tax Credit.

Todd & Millie want their trial stayed, because maybe 5 Cir will confirm USDCNDTX and declare the whole shootin’ match unConstitutional.

Todd & Millie refer to a “…decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and asserted that the court had held, ‘[t]he entire ACA * * * to be unconstitutional, including * * * [advance payments of the PTC]’. See Texas v. United States, 340 F. Supp. 3d 579 (N.D. Tex. 2018), appeal filed (5th Cir. Jan. 3, 2019). Petitioners appear to assert that the appellate court may agree that the ACA is unconstitutional and therefore the tax treatment of the PTC cannot be determined until the appeal has been heard.” Order, at p. 1.

As usual, IRS is no fun. But STJ Diana L (“The Taxpayer’s Friend”) Leyden doesn’t mind spoiling the fun, either.

“Respondent states that 16 days after the United States District Court issued its decision, it ordered the decision stayed during the pendency of the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Texas v. United States, 352 F. Supp. 3d 665 (N.D. Tex. 2018), and, therefore, the decision is not binding on anyone. Further, respondent states that the United States District Court only considered whether amendments to the ACA that reduced the shared responsibility payment under Internal Revenue Code section 5000A(c) to zero dollars effective for months beginning after December 31, 2018, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of2017 (TCJA), Pub. L. No. 115-79, sec. 11081(a) and (b), 131 Stat. at 2092, made the ACA unconstitutional. Respondent contends that the analysis of the decision would not affect the PTC for years before 2019.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

And with a petition date of 2018 for a 2016 deficiency, Todd & Millie are still in.

“The appeal of the United States District Court’s stayed decision does not prevent the Court from proceeding with petitioners’ case insofar as the advance payments of the PTC in issue are for 2016, a period prior to the effective date of the amendments to the ACA.” Order, at p. 2.

I give Todd & Millie a Taishoff “Good try, second class.”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: