The Insurance Market Regulations in the Republicans’ Health Care Bill: Crippling Obamacare, or Passing a Hot Potato to State Governments?

By David Gamage

On Monday, the House Republicans finally revealed their draft bill to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (#Obamacare or #ACA). The bill is titled the American Health Care Act, and commentators have been referring to it as either the #AHCA or #Trumpcare.

To assess the bill, it is helpful to think of it as consisting of four primary buckets:

  1. ending many of Obamacare’s tax provisions (read: large tax cuts for the very wealthy);
  2. phased-in cuts to Medicaid funding and scheduled devolution of Medicaid to the states (read: eroding the health safety-net program for the poor);
  3. transforming Obamacare’s other major health subsidies from being based mostly on income and health costs to being based more on age (read: the implications of this are actually less straightforward than what much of the commentary suggests, but that is a topic for another day); and
  4. other changes to Obamacare’s insurance market regulations (the subject of today’s blog post).

In this blog post, I will focus on the fourth bucket—the changes to Obamacare’s insurance market reforms other than the changes to the subsidies. Time permitting, I hope to write future blog posts on some of the other buckets.

What is most striking about the AHCA’s insurance market changes is how they keep the vast majority of Obamacare’s reforms in place. Right-wing groups have thus taken to calling the AHCA “#ObamacareLite”. Yet I consider this a misnomer. A more accurate label would be #ObamacareCrippled.

The AHCA’s changes do not really water down Obamacare, as the intended slur of “ObamacareLite” implies. Rather, the AHCA’s changes would likely cause Obamacare‘s framework for regulating the individual market to fall apart. If the AHCA bill were to be enacted in its current form, the result would likely be adverse-selection death spirals. The only real hope for saving the individual market would be for state governments to step up with new state-level regulations for supporting insurance markets within each state.

Continue reading “The Insurance Market Regulations in the Republicans’ Health Care Bill: Crippling Obamacare, or Passing a Hot Potato to State Governments?”

The Status of Judicial Anti-Abuse Doctrines if Code Section 7701(o) Were Repealed

As Daniel Hemel points out in a cross-linked post on Whatever Source Derived, if Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it is possible that Code section 7701(o) will go with it. (Section 7701(o) and its accompanying penalty were included in the ACA as a revenue raiser.) This raises the question of what repeal would mean for the economic substance doctrine specifically and for judicial anti-abuse rules more generally. This post makes three main points:

  1. Repeal of Code section 7701(o) is not a good idea. At a minimum, its potential repeal should be considered separately from the ACA, as it has no substantive link to the ACA.
  1. Repeal of the codified economic substance doctrine should not affect other judicial doctrines.
  1. Repeal of Code section 7701(o) would not eliminate the judicially developed economic substance doctrine. Daniel has provided a couple of arguments in support of that view, drawing on statutory-interpretation principles, and I add an argument based on the language of section 7701(o) itself.

First, anti-abuse rules are valuable. They help prevent taxpayers from engaging in artificial transactions designed to produce artificial tax benefits, such as non-economic losses used to offset unrelated income. Some of these transactions may not actually “work” under the technical provisions of the Code, Treasury regulations, or IRS guidance. However, abusive tax shelters typically are structured to take advantage of the literal language of the tax laws. If (and, ideally, only if) technical challenges fail, anti-abuse doctrines help prevent misuse of the tax laws. Continue reading “The Status of Judicial Anti-Abuse Doctrines if Code Section 7701(o) Were Repealed”

When Leaks Drive Tax Law (a.k.a. our new paper!)

Shu-Yi Oei

Diane Ring and I just posted our new article, Leak-Driven Law, on SSRN. I had previously blogged about this paper as part of Leandra Lederman’s 2017 Mini-Symposium on Tax Enforcement and Administration, The abstract is here:

Over the past decade, a number of well-publicized data leaks have revealed the secret offshore holdings of high-net-worth individuals and multinational taxpayers, leading to a sea change in cross-border tax enforcement. Spurred by leaked data, tax authorities have prosecuted offshore tax cheats, attempted to recoup lost revenues, enacted new laws, and signed international agreements that promote “sunshine” and exchange of financial information between countries.

The conventional wisdom is that data leaks enable tax authorities to detect and punish offshore tax evasion more effectively, and that leaks are therefore socially beneficial from an economic welfare perspective. This Article argues, however, that the conventional wisdom is too simplistic. In certain circumstances, leak-driven lawmaking may in fact produce negative social welfare outcomes. Agenda-setting behaviors of leakers and media organizations, inefficiencies in data transmission, suboptimally designed legislation, and unanticipated behavioral responses by enforcement-elastic taxpayers are all factors that may reduce social welfare in the aftermath of a tax leak.

This Article examines the potential welfare outcomes of leak-driven lawmaking and identifies predictable drivers that may affect those outcomes. It provides suggestions and cautions for making tax law, after a leak, in order to best tap into the benefits of leaks while managing their pitfalls.

In this paper, we wanted to explore how leaks of taxpayer data in the offshore context have shaped international tax law and policy, both in the US and other countries. We especially were interested in the possibility that—while leaks might appear useful on the surface from a tax enforcement and informational standpoint—there are unexplored pitfalls and downsides to relying on leaks to direct lawmaking and policy priorities.

In the non-tax world, of course, leaks have suddenly become very salient, in terms of both their usefulness and their dangers. But (non-tax lurkers take note!) tax law has been dealing with leaks of taxpayer information and what they mean for tax enforcement for at least the past ten years. Of course, tax leaks have some distinctive characteristics that make them different from other types of leaks. For example, the tax leaks that are the subject of this paper are usually (though not invariably) leaks of private taxpayer data, rather than leaks about governments from government sources.

We do think that the framework we introduce in our paper for analyzing the upsides and downsides of leak-driven lawmaking can be applied to explore how non-tax leaks and reactions to them may be socially beneficial but could also lead to less than ideal results. In both tax and in other fields, the meta-issue is not just how governments and private actors can use leaked information to sanction bad behaviors, make decisions, or design laws. Rather, the issue is how the actions and responses of leakers, governments, journalists, international organizations and the public work together to create and promote certain outcomes. Once we understand the underlying dynamics, then we can consider how the outcomes they create should be evaluated, supported, or resisted.

If you’re working on leak-related scholarship in either tax or other fields, we’d love to chat.

The Art of the (Budget) Deal

By Daniel Hemel and David Herzig

Who Holds the Trump Card on Reconciliation?

Republicans on Capitol Hill are reportedly planning to use the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process to repeal the Affordable Care Act and overhaul the tax code. Against that background, Sam Wice says that “the most powerful person in America” in 2017 will be Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, the nonpartisan official who will “determine” how much of their agenda Republicans can pass through reconciliation. This, of course, is an exaggeration: like it or not, the most powerful person in America in 2017 will be Donald J. Trump, who will wield all the power of the imperial presidency. But Wice’s post helpfully directs our attention to the budget reconciliation process, the rules of which quite likely will determine whether the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill can repeal the ACA and reform the tax laws.

Yet while one should not underestimate the importance of reconciliation, one should also not overestimate the power of the Parliamentarian in the reconciliation process. As a formal matter, the Parliamentarian’s role is advisory; and as a practical matter, the Parliamentarian has little say over significant aspects of reconciliation. Other actors—most notably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wy.)—wield at least as much influence as the Parliamentarian. Most importantly, Enzi—not MacDonough—will determine whether the provisions in any reconciliation bill violate various rules against deficit-increasing legislation being passed via reconciliation. And unlike the Parliamentarian, the Budget Committee Chairman is very hard to fire.

Reconciliation measures can begin in either or both chambers. However, since the ultimate vote on the budget measure occurs in the Senate, we’ll focus on the Senate side of the reconciliation process for purposes of this discussion. On the House side, the Rules Committee Chair and the Budget Committee Chair will wield outsized influence as well. We expect Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) to stay on as House Rules Committee Chair; as for the House Budget Committee Chair, the race is on for a replacement to Tom Price, the Georgia Republican recently tapped as Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary.

To understand why the Budget Committee Chair is as powerful as he is, a bit of background on reconciliation may be helpful. Continue reading “The Art of the (Budget) Deal”

Cooking The Books Podcast on Trump’s Taxes

By: David J. Herzig

Today Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, David Cay Johnston, Phil Hackney, and I got together for a 30 minute podcast discussion regarding the recent NY Times follow-up article about Mr. Trump’s $916 million tax loss (“NOL”).

Here is link if you missed hyper-link above: http://share.sparemin.com/recording-5131

The topics ranged from the current tax reporting regarding Mr. Trump’s 1990s tax returns to the Trump Foundation to potential criminal sanctions against Mr. Trump.  It was fantastic to be a part of and I hope everyone listens.

Continue reading “Cooking The Books Podcast on Trump’s Taxes”

Congratulations to the Newly Elected Members of the American Law Institute!

By: Francine J. Lipman

The American Law Institute (ALI) has just announced its newly elected members. The members who join ALI from across the country will bring their diverse backgrounds and areas of legal expertise to ALI’s work. Fifteen of the 45 new members are professors, sixteen are partners (or the equivalent) in law firms, seven are judges, six are in private industry, and one is a government legal advisor.

“One of the most exciting aspects of being President of the ALI is meeting some of today’s most important and inspiring legal minds as they are elected into The American Law Institute. I look forward to having the opportunity to work alongside these new members in continuing the ALI’s efforts in clarifying the law,” said ALI President Roberta Cooper Ramo. Continue reading “Congratulations to the Newly Elected Members of the American Law Institute!”

Make Way for Ducklings?

Shu-Yi Oei 

Professor Charlotte Crane (Northwestern) presented Integrating a Fragmented Corporate Income Tax at BC Law School’s Tax Policy Workshop yesterday. Briefly, the paper is focused on recent proposals to integrate the corporate income tax, in particular, the yet-to-be-released Orrin Hatch proposal from the Senate Finance Committee. I’m no corporate tax expert, but the workshop afforded me the excuse to wade like a duckling through the recent literature…a nice break from other projects.

The corporate integration debate refers to the question of whether to eliminate the corporate double tax (i.e., the tax on both the corporation and its shareholders on the same underlying income) and replace it with a single layer of tax. Many have argued that this would reduce tax burdens, minimize economic distortions, and bring us closer to tax neutrality in investment decisions. Others have argued that corporate integration achieved through shifting the corporate tax to the shareholder level will enhance progressivity and fairness.

The integration debate has raged for decades, with important Treasury and ALI studies in 1992 and 1993, and a surge of recent academic and policy interest. There are various design possibilities, including: integration via a shareholder credit (a.k.a. imputation), integration via a dividend deduction paired with a shareholder withholding tax, integration via a shareholder dividend exclusion, flow-through taxation, and others. A couple of recent proposals: Toder and Viard have suggested eliminating the corporate tax and replacing it with taxation of shareholder dividends and gains at ordinary rates, with gains taxed on a mark-to-market (accrual) basis. And Gruber and Altshuler even more recently proposed pairing a lowered (15%) corporate tax rate with ordinary income taxation of shareholder dividends and capital gains (including an interest charge on deferred shareholder liabilities designed to minimize behavioral distortions).

Continue reading “Make Way for Ducklings?”

I’ve Got ITINs on My Mind

By: Francine J. Lipman

Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) Holders Pay Over $45 Billion Annually in Federal, State, and Local Taxes

Among the many amazing opportunities I have had as a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas is continuing my work with immigrants on their tax issues. As I have written about at length unauthorized immigrants pay many tens of billions of dollars a year in taxes including federal (about 4.4 million ITIN tax returns were filed in 2015 paying over $23 billion including $18.1 in federal income taxes and $5.5 in self-employment taxes), state, and local income, property, sales, excise, etc. ($12 billion annually), and payroll taxes (about $12 billion a year in net Social Security and Medicare taxes for which they currently receive no current or future benefit).

ITINs GENERALLY

Nevertheless, Congress continues to challenge this population with respect to their tax compliance. If you do not know what an ITIN is then this issue likely does not directly affect you … however if you want a quick education the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) has a great primer available in English and Spanish here. Since 1996, IRS has issued about 21 million ITINs although only about 5 million are currently being used. Congress had previously enacted legislation causing any ITIN not used for five years to expire. However, that legislation was not given a chance to be enforced, because Congress has been busy enacting more recent ITIN expiration legislation that supersedes the five year law.

THE CURRENT ITIN on my mind ISSUE

ITIN EXPIRATIONS

In the recently enacted PATH Act of 2015 (Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes), among other matters, all ITINs issued before 2013 will be expiring and have to be renewed. An ITIN issued after December 31, 2012, will remain valid unless the person to whom it was issued does not file a tax return—or is not included as a dependent on the return of another taxpayer—for three consecutive years.

Congress has phased-in the expiration of ITINS as follows:

IF THE ITIN WAS ISSUED         THE ITIN EXPIRES ON

before January 1, 2008                    January 1, 2017
in 2008                                             January 1, 2018
in 2009 or 2010                                January 1, 2019
in 2011 or 2012                                January 1, 2020

In an effort to streamline the process, the IRS is identifying the first wave of ITINs expiring on January 1, 2017 as ITINs with the middle digits of 78 or 79. The IRS will identify the respective middle digits for the second, third, and fourth waves of expirations in time.

HOW TO RENEW BEGINNING October 1, 2016 

ITINs scheduled to expire as of January 1, 2017 (middle digits 78 or 79 or any ITIN not used on a tax return for the last three consecutive years (e.g., 2013, 2014, and 2015)), can be renewed using the newly revised for this purpose Form W7 (available here) also known as an Application for IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. No tax return is required for a renewal application.

The application including all required original documents (e.g., passport) must be mailed to Internal Revenue Service, ITIN Operation, P.O. Box 149342, Austin, TX 78714-9342. The anticipated time that the IRS will take to renew or issue an ITIN outside of peak processing times (between January and April) has historically been about six weeks. However, in a recent press conference the IRS said that they would be sending 400,000 letters to ITIN holders with expiring ITNs so there could be a much longer waiting period. The National Taxpayer Advocate has written about the ITIN application backlog and bottleneck in her 2015 Report to Congress as Most Serious Problem Number 18.

Any original documents or certified copies submitted in support of an ITIN application are supposed to be returned within 65 days. Taxpayers who do not receive their original and certified documents within 65 days of mailing them to the IRS may call 1-800-908-9982 to check on their documents.

CERTIFIED ACCEPTANCE AGENTS   Not surprisingly, many immigrants will not want to send original documents to the IRS. In lieu of sending original documentation, taxpayers may be eligible to use an IRS authorized Certified Acceptance Agent (CAA) or make an appointment at a designated IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center location. CAAs often charge a fee for services rendered although some of the large chains of retail tax preparation companies are advertising free ITIN renewal services. I would advise taxpayers to proceed with caution as there may be ancillary costs, charges, or fees. The Consumer Federation of America, among others including myself, have written about the high cost of tax assistance services for low-income taxpayers and the potential for consumer abuse including price gouging.

FAMILY ITIN APPLICATIONS   The IRS will accept a Form W-7 renewal application from each member of a family if at least one of the family members listed on a tax return has an ITIN with the middle digits of 78 or 79. If one family member has middle digits 78 or 79, all family members who have an ITIN may submit a Form W-7 renewal application at the same time.

FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES IF ITINs Are NOT Renewed

Until ITINs are renewed, returns with expired ITINs will be processed and treated as timely filed, but the returns will be processed without any exemptions and/or credits claimed and no refund will be paid. The taxpayer will receive a notice from the IRS explaining the delay in any refund and that ITINs must be renewed. Once ITINs are renewed, any exemptions and credits will be processed and any allowed refunds will be paid. If ITINs are not renewed, taxpayers may be subject to interest and penalties for any tax owed as a result of disallowed exemptions and credits.

images

 

 

 

 

HELP IS AVAILABLE

The more than 130 Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics across the country should be able to answer questions and point you in the right direction to get assistance. To find the contact information for a LITC in your area look at this user-friendly map and list in English and Spanish here.

Moreover, the NILC and other immigrant advocate groups and pro bono lawyers like myself are always here to lend a hand. On November 16th, UNLV will be hosting a Continuing Legal Education program titled “Everything You Need to Know About the NEW Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) Renewal Process” from 12:30 – 2:30 p.m. at William S. Boyd School of Law, Moot Court Room. Join us.

images-1

 

 

Rio 2016!

rioThe Rio Olympics start this weekend.[fn1] And, in spite of the catastrophe that the Rio Olympics may potentially be, we’ll be watching (in the same way John Oliver excoriated FIFA for 12 minutes before announcing that he was “still so excited” for the World Cup).

U.S. Olympians are likely to win a collective 100 or so medals over the next couple weeks. And, in addition to medals, winners will receive cash payments from the U.S. Olympic Committee—it will pay $25,000 for a gold, $15,000 for a silver, and $10,000 for a bronze. Continue reading “Rio 2016!”

Emerging Trend for Uber in Europe?

By: Diane Ring

Uber, one of the most prominent faces of the sharing economy, has not always been welcome in the EU. Similarly, Airbnb has experienced legal, regulatory, and public policy resistance across European countries. However, two recent developments in the EU suggest that, on balance, Europe might be staking out a regulatory path for the sharing economy that is intended to demonstrate the region’s support for the new sector. . . . Continue reading “Emerging Trend for Uber in Europe?”