Protecting 2016 IRSP refunds with a Protective Claim

[Just-Lisa-Now-]

https://mailchi.mp/taxpracticepro.com/protecting-potential-2016-isrp-refunds-with-a-protective-claim...

I'm not sure if I had many of these that paid the penalty for no insurance (that's what this is referring to, right?)...Id have to go digging, not sure if there's a query set up for this or not...is anyone else being proactive with this, just in case?

[TaxGuyBill]

I would need to re-read things, but from what I remember, the court case did NOT say that.  They said that AFTER the penalty was changed to zero, the "mandate" to have health insurance is unconstitutional.  That would have no effect on prior penalties.

There could be more litigation in the courts for further changes, but as of now, the court's ruling changed nothing about prior penalties.

[TaxGuyBill]

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-texas-v-u-s-a-guide-to-the-case-challenging...

[sjrcpa]

@TaxGuyBillSome in the tax community feel that if Texas et al prevail in the Supreme Ct, the whole law will be thrown out. Then Net Investment Income Tax and additional Medicare tax, as well as the penalty/tax for not having insurance will be declared unconstitutional. There's a move to file protective claims for refund for 2016 .

I commented on a post about this yesterday but can't find it today using the lousy search function. Instead I found this post. Ooh  -found it in my notification feed

https://proconnect.intuit.com/community/proseries-discussions/discussion/re-has-anyone-filed-a-prote...

[TaxGuyBill]

I guess I don't see it that way.  The Supreme Court already ruled that the penalty was constitutional.

This court case hinges in if the penalty is zero ... what happens?  As you say, a zero penalty COULD hypothetically void all other ACA laws (which makes absolutely no sense to me, but weirder things have happened).  But again, that is based on a zero penalty, which didn't start until 2018.