Attorney-at-Law

“WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ BILLS”

In Uncategorized on 11/18/2019 at 17:32

That’s IRS’ response to Lior Blas, 2019 T. C. Memo. 152, filed 11/18/19. Lior was unemployed and uninsured, but, fearing the penalty (or is it a tax? Ask Chief Justice Roberts) mulcted upon the uninsured, Lior joined the Marketplace and got Affordable Care Act insurance.

He never got any bills, but he did get an insurance card. He also got a job, which paid him $83K, but provided no health insurance. Lior claims he never knew he was getting coverage and that our tax dollars were picking up his tab. But IRS knew, and hit Lior with a SNOD for the $8K of premiums his insurer got.

Lior claims “phantom income” and “never got a bill but IRS has burden of proof to show I got anything.”

Judge Vasquez don’t need no stinkin’ bills either, because preponderance of evidence.

“Despite the lack of billing statements for petitioner’s [year at issue] insurance coverage, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that petitioner was the beneficiary of APTC [advancxe premium tax credits] payments….  At trial respondent submitted business records from [insurer] and the Marketplace.  The Marketplace’s records establish that…petitioner applied for insurance coverage on the Marketplace website.  On his application petitioner reported household income of $15,000, which qualified him for monthly APTC payments of up to $765.  At trial petitioner acknowledged completing this application.

“[Insurer]’s business records establish that petitioner was enrolled in its … plan with a coverage start date of January 1 [year at issue].  In [year at issue] the monthly premium for this plan was $694, which is the same monthly amount reported on the Form 1095-A.

“We understand petitioner’s concerns about the lack of billing statements, which in different circumstances might support a finding that no APTC payments were made.  In this case, however, petitioner admitted applying for insurance through the Marketplace, and respondent provided evidence that he received insurance coverage for which APTC payments were made.  Thus, we find it more likely than not that petitioner was the beneficiary of the APTC payments. Although we are sympathetic to petitioner’s situation, we are not a court of equity, and we cannot ignore the law to achieve an equitable end.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 152, at pp. 9-10. (Citations omitted).

Lior also claims a casualty loss for the first time at trial. No evidence.

 

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: