Recently, Senator Ted Cruz made headlines with his claim that the “IRS Code” contains more words than the Bible, with “not a one of them as good.” The Washington Post fact-checked that claim but in doing so, opened up another hornet’s nest. Academics across the country wrote in to take issue with the WaPo’s parroting […]

In my prior posts, I have discussed two Treasury/IRS regulations that contradict the language of Section 36B. The first regulation rewrites Section 36(c)(1)(B) and extends the ACA tax credit, in a roundabout way, to unlawful aliens. However, as I previously noted, it’s doubtful that the employers of the unlawful aliens would face any adverse consequences […]

In a prior post, I wrote about Treasury/IRS regulations that contradict Section 36B and extend the ACA premium tax credit to some low-income unlawful aliens. In this post, I want to discuss another regulation that contradicts the statute. Although Section 36B provides tax credits only if your household income falls within a certain range (100 […]

In my prior post, I explained how Treasury/IRS regulations contradict Section 36B and essentially extend premium tax credits to the lawfully residing dependents of an unlawfully residing alien. I posited that a controversy could arise when the extension of that credit triggered an employee penalty. To avoid a penalty under Section 4980H(a), an employer must provide […]

As the end of the Supreme Court’s current term nears, all eyes are on King v. Burwell, in which the Court will address whether premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act extend to purchases of health plans on federally established exchanges. As I learn more about Section 36B, however, I’m growing increasingly concerned that […]

For about the last 30 years, the tax community has hotly debated the propriety of increased judicial lawmaking in the tax shelter area. District and appellate courts routinely decide federal tax cases without interpreting or even citing a single income tax statute, and they sometimes openly dismiss legislative enactments as meaningless “details.” Only rarely will […]

In a NYTimes op-ed, Professor Will Baude argues that the Obama Administration can easily avoid any adverse decision in King v. Burwell by limiting the case to the particular persons in front of it. That is, the administration won’t collect penalties from the challengers but can continue to provide tax credits for policies purchased on […]

In a characteristically provocative opinion, Justice Scalia, concurring in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers, expressed skepticism over Chevron deference. He suggests that Chevron does not comport with the APA’s directive that “the reviewing court” decide questions of law and that Chevron goes beyond the historic level of deference accorded agency interpretations. Putting aside issues of stare […]

During oral arguments in King v. Burwell, Justice Alito referred to a few issues that have been covered on this blog. For now, I’d like to focus on his question regarding a potential stay of any government-adverse decision. Regarding the stay, Justice Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli whether a holding for the petitioner would wreak […]

This is the sixth in a series of my posts discussing some of the amicus briefs filed in King v. Burwell: The amici brief filed by the Galen Institute and a group of state legislators views King v. Burwell as an issue of state rights. That is, Section 36B can be understood through the lens […]

This is the fifth in a series of my posts discussing some of the amicus briefs filed in King v. Burwell: The amici curiae brief of Professor Josh Blackman and the Cato Institute reflects an unusual but effective contribution to King v. Burwell. The brief touches only lightly on the actual question presented, focusing instead […]

This is the fourth in a series of my posts discussing some of the amicus briefs filed in King v. Burwell: Our next amicus brief comes two nonprofits groups, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, along with some individual physicians (the AAPS brief). I will confess that […]

This is the third in a series of my posts discussing some of the amicus briefs filed in King v. Burwell: A group of academics have filed a provocative brief in King v. Burwell, viewing the dispute through the lens of the Constitution’s appropriations clause. The academics argue that the health care law is an […]

This is the second in a series of my posts discussing some of the various amicus briefs filed in King v. Burwell: In their brief supporting the taxpayers, the Washington Legal Foundation and Professor Steven J. Willis argue that Section 36B’s plain text forecloses the IRS’s interpretation. A good chunk of the brief repeats arguments […]

Judging from the Supreme Court’s docket, many attorneys spent their Christmas vacations putting together various amicus briefs supporting the taxpayers in King v. Burwell. Over the next few weeks, I’d like to survey those briefs and offer my reactions to some of them. I expect to offer specific thoughts on the briefs themselves and provide […]