IRS Looking Into Tapping Into Refunds For Health Insurance Penalties

http://annem040359.wordpress.com/ ^ | April 6, 2010 | annem040359

[Biggirl]

This comes to me as no surprise, the IRS now getting creative with enforcing the new healthcare reform bill. From Reuters, the IRS is looking at tapping into income tax refunds, in order to collect any fines from people who refuse to buy health insurance.

According to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said after speaking at the National Press Club, he has said that under the new law, “the IRS cannot seize assets or levy fines”, so Mr. Shulman has added that it would be “that the refunds were the most obvious option to collect penalties”.

[Biggirl]

More government controls.

[kcvl]

Don’t overpay the IRS, end of problem.

[gimme1ibertee]

What happens if you don’t get a refund?

[apillar]

Well if it's true the IRS can't use any other enforcement methods such as garnishments or liens then it is still easy to avoid the fines, just fiddle with your witholdings so that you owe money at the end of the year, but not enough to incur a penalty. Most financial planners advise you to do this anyway. No refunds = No fine. I still find it hard to believe that the IRS is just going to let these fines build up year after year with no recourse to collect other than hoping you have a refund they can take at some date in the future.

[RebelTXRose]

I think they will find SOME way to take the money.

[SkyDancer]

I thought they could already do that - I’ve read cases of garnishing and the taking of property for non-payment of taxes ... Willie Nelson and Spike Lee come to mind ... I think Spike Lee is/was in prison for tax evasion ...

[Oceander]

They can garnish wages and bank accounts, and seize assets to pay unpaid taxes (including penalties and interest), but it takes a long time to get to that point. To date the IRS takes a long, long time before it actually gets to the point of seizing assets to cover unpaid taxes - that doesn't justify it, particularly in this case, but it does mean that you won't face immediate garnishment just because you exercise your right to ignore a blatantly unconstitutional tax.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Underwithhold.

Problem solved.

[seastay]

We will have to pay an insurance tax on our paychecks, then depending how much money we make and which tax bracket we fall in and the end of the year, we may be able to recover the tax by showing proof of insurance. If a person makes too much money or has no proof of insurance Obamas people then keep your money as a fine. Their goal is to collect the fines up front, such that we will be guilty of having no insurance or making too much money until proved otherwise, then upon showing we are Innocent we will receive our fines rebated. Bottom line is we won't have the right to not pay anything to prevent them from keeping our funds. This is a backdoor fine, they may want to call it otherwise, and I would argue, that making us pay the fine up front without proving we are guilty of not having the insurance has to be un constitutional because in this country we are innocent until pro
Shown to be guilty.

[Oldpuppymax]

So make CERTAIN you have NO refund coming!!

[seastay]

If you don't get a refund, you will still be able to file and show proof of insurance in which case you will receive an earned income credit which is double speak for a welfare check up to 6000 dollars I have heard to pay for your insurance. If you are not filling they will count you as a poor person that is due a welfare check and by not filing and proving insurance, then you will loose out on your welfare check. Basically if one makes no money they are not paying taxes, but the democrats have made a bastard of the wording, in that filing for those who don't work is a means of receiving welfare, just the opposite of paying tax.

[Freddd]

What if you get no refund?

Ooops.

[bicyclerepair]

Remind us how we should put the dependants on the w2?

[gimme1ibertee]

Good Lord....we are in such a huge mess!!!!