The newest Obamacare fail: Penalties of $36,500 per worker! THE IRS MONEY GRAB!

” Internal Revenue Service penalty is not written into the Obamacare law.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Opinion: The newest Obamacare fail: penalties of $36,500 per worker

Published: July 23, 2015 12:50 p.m. ET

The Internal Revenue Service swoops in with a money grab

Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Hey, employers, don’t even think about reimbursing your workers’ health-insurance premiums.

Beginning this month, the IRS can levy fines amounting to $100 per worker per day or $36,500 per worker per year, with a maximum of $500,000 per firm.

This Internal Revenue Service penalty is not written into the Obamacare law. The amount is over 12 times the statutory amount in the Affordable Care Act of $3,000 per worker per year. That is what an employer is charged when one of its employees gets subsidized care on one of the health-care exchanges. It’s 18 times the $2,000 penalty for not offering adequate health insurance.

The $100 fine is applicable not only to large firms, but also those with fewer than 50 workers that are exempt from the $2,000 and $3,000 employer penalties. Firms with one worker are exempt. The penalty for S-corporations will take effect on Jan. 1, 2016. The new rule is broad, sweeping and overly punitive.

This new IRS penalty does not assist in the ACA’s stated goal of expanding health insurance in the United States. Rather, it does the opposite. It discourages people from finding and purchasing the insurance that suits them. It also discourages companies from hiring. Consider that 14% of businesses that do not offer group health insurance have some sort of arrangement to reimburse their employees for insurance costs, according to the National Federation of Independent Business.

Small employers with a workforce of between 50 and 100 employees are required to offer the more expensive ‘essential health benefits.’

The administration should be encouraging employers to take on more labor, because many capable people are sitting on the sidelines. On the day after the IRS rule took effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its Employment Situation Report for June 2015. The report showed that U.S. labor-force participation had declined to a new low, 62.6%, equivalent to levels in October 1977. The drop included prime-age workers, those between 25 and 55, who are normally in the labor market because they generally have finished school and have not yet retired.

Rep. Charles Boustany, a Republican from Louisiana, has introduced the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act of 2015, and Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has a companion bill in the Senate (S.1697). The bills would allow small businesses to use pre-tax dollars to assist employees purchasing insurance in the individual market.

Why has the IRS taken this extreme view? If the employer reimburses an employee for health-insurance premiums, this arrangement is described as an employer-payment plan. The employer-payment plan is considered by the IRS to be a group health plan that has to meet the conditions of Affordable Care Act insurance, including the prohibition on annual limits for essential health benefits and the requirement to provide certain preventive care without cost sharing.

MarketWatch columnist Bill Bischoff explains the new rule as follows. “Employer-payment arrangements have long been a popular way for small employers to help workers obtain health coverage without the hassle and expense of furnishing a full-fledged company health-insurance plan. Under an employer-payment arrangement, the employer reimburses participating employees for premiums paid for their individual health-insurance policies or pays the premiums directly on behalf of participating employees.”

Small employers with a workforce of between 50 and 100 employees are required to offer the more expensive “essential health benefits,” including hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental-health and substance-use disorder services, and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

In contrast, large employers, those with more than 100 workers, do not have to meet all the generous standards for health-insurance plans offered on the state exchanges, but can offer lesser health insurance and still avoid penalties. The “minimum essential coverage” that large employers have to offer to comply with the law turns out to be substantially less generous than the “essential health benefits” required for plans sold to individuals and small businesses by insurance companies.

Of course, not all employers will choose low-benefit plans. In order to retain workers, many large employers are likely to offer generous plans, and offset the cost by paying a lower cash wage. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that benefits account for 32% of compensation packages, with cash wages responsible for the remainder. However, low-benefit plans are likely to be attractive to employers with low-skill workforces in the restaurant, retail, and leisure and hospitality industries.

Although large employers can legally offer low-benefit plants, small employers are not allowed to do so. This leads to an extraordinary discrepancy in potential tax payments between small and large employers. Hence, they face both higher costs for insurance and higher tax penalties if they fail to offer such insurance.

The Boustany-Grassley bill is focused on small businesses, but it makes sense to allow individuals in large companies to choose less expensive options. Health-insurance premiums are rising substantially. Oregon’s health-insurance commissioner has just approved raises of 25% to 33% for Moda Health Plan and Lifewise, affecting over 220,000 people. Other health-insurance companies nationwide are asking for increases in the same range, and insurance commissioners are deciding whether to approve them.

Even the least expensive plans on the health exchanges, termed bronze plans, feature deductibles that are prohibitive for many. The average deductible on a bronze plan is $5,000 for a single person and $11,000 for a family, according to HealthPocket, a research firm.

Businesses need to take a stand against this new IRS power grab. As Americans search for low-cost ways to stay insured, it makes sense for the government to give employers more options, rather than fewer.
More from MarketWatch

2015 is 1984!
Big Brother Barry is watching us!


Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, is the coauthor of “Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young.” Follow her on Twitter here.


Dear Newsmax Reader:

Please find below a special message from the ActRight Legal Foundation. They have taken the lead in suing the IRS for improperly targeting conservative groups. Please take a moment to read their important message. Thank you.

Dear Newsmax Reader:

The Internal Revenue Service has been caught in the act of systematically targeting and harassing conservative, small-government and tea party organizations applying for tax-exempt status.

Someone needs to speak up for the rights of these brave nonprofit organizations.

We at the ActRight Legal Foundation are doing just that. That is why we have established the IRS Litigation Fund.

The ActRight Legal Foundation acted swiftly and filed suit against the IRS Tuesday on behalf of True the Vote, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan charitable and educational organization.

Our reason for being “targeted” by the IRS is that our organization has been fighting for fair and honest elections.

Many people oppose this idea – so basic to all our freedoms. We were shocked to learn the IRS was among them.

The Foundation’s lawsuit has quickly attracted national attention, making the front page on Drudge Report and garnering coverage in the widely read and respected National Review.

You have seen Catherine Engelbrecht, president of True the Vote, on Fox News and many television programs.

Catherine had this to say:


“We filed with the IRS for our exempt status more than 3 years ago but we are still waiting for our letter of determination from the agency … True the Vote is dedicated solely to the protection of the integrity of the election process in our country. We are not partisan and we are not political. But the IRS nonetheless blacklisted our organization, along with hundreds of other citizens groups.”

Enough is enough! With your help, we are taking a stand against this outrageous and unconstitutional abuse of power.

Please support the lawsuit against the IRS by making a tax-deductible contribution to ActRight Legal Foundation.


For years, ActRight Legal Foundation attorneys have been combing the tax code and they are well-versed in tax law and procedure.


We are ideally suited to take on this challenge and we intend to hold the IRS accountable for its actions.

We have outlined a bold legal strategy in which we have full confidence. True the Vote is asking the Court to grant its long-awaited tax-exempt status, and seeking damages for the unlawful treatment to which it was subjected by the IRS during its review process.

In our lawsuit, we are represented by Cleta Mitchell, the counsel to True the Vote and of-Counsel to ActRight Legal Foundation.

Cleta is the famous elections attorney who has played a key role in blowing the whistle on the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

Cleta stated:

 “We are not going to allow the IRS to claim, as it has been doing in the past week, that the targeting of conservative groups is over and ‘everything has been fixed’. It is not yet fixed and this litigation is a vital step both to resolve True the Vote’s status and to learn exactly what happened inside the IRS.”

This is not the only front which ActRight Legal Foundation is taking on the IRS.

On behalf of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), ActRight Legal Foundation is working to file suit against the IRS regarding an alleged illegal leak of NOM’s 2008 tax information in March 2012.

The information was leaked to and published by the Huffington Post and NOM’s political adversary, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), whose president at the time of the leak was serving as a co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign.

NOM believes the source of the leak came from within the IRS and plans to seek damages for the alleged illegal disclosure of their private tax information.

The IRS is supposed to be impartial and handle tax matters in a manner that will promote public confidence.

Clearly, it is not up to the task.

The ActRight Legal Foundation sees the grave consequences that can result from this type of treatment by government agencies like the IRS.

According to John Eastman, of-Counsel to the ActRight Legal Foundation:

“When the government itself becomes a special interest on one side of the major political fights of the day, we have a problem much bigger than any of these particular scandals, big as they are themselves.”

The stakes in this fight are unbelievably huge, and we need your help to win. Will you stand with us?

I hope you will help protect free speech and the right of nonprofit groups—regardless of their ideology—to actively participate in society by making a tax-deductible contribution today of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or more.



Thank you for your support.


Zachary S. Kester

Managing Attorney

P.S. The IRS is on the offensive. We are fighting back. No organization should be singled out and harassed by the IRS because of their political leanings!

P.P.S. Working with True the Vote and the National Organization for Marriage, ActRight Legal Foundation is actively challenging the IRS’ speech-stifling regulations.  With your help, we are confident we can winWill you please take a moment right now to make an investment in the ActRight Legal Foundation’s IRS LITIGATION FUND of $1,000, $500, $250, $100, or whatever your means allow? To learn more, please visit us at