Warning: Use of undefined constant wp_cumulus_widget - assumed 'wp_cumulus_widget' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/www/cpa-la.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-cumulus/wp-cumulus.php on line 375
Federal Court Rules Health Care Insurance Mandate Unconstitutional - Emil Estafanous, CPA : Emil Estafanous, CPA

Federal Court Rules Health Care Insurance Mandate Unconstitutional

A sovereign district justice has hold that a health caring remodel legislation’s charge that people obtain health word is unconstitutional (Virginia v. Sebelius, No. 3:10-CV-188 (E.D. Va. 12/13/10)). In so holding, however, a justice severed that charge from a rest of a health caring remodel legislation and refused to request enforcement, tentative interest of a case.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) enacted new Sec. 5000A, that requires U.S. adults and authorised residents to say smallest amounts of health word coverage, starting in 2014. Individuals who destroy to say smallest essential coverage will be theme to a penalty. The Commonwealth of Virginia challenged a constitutionality of this sustenance in a fit opposite a Secretary of a Department of Health and Human Services.

Virginia argued that Sec. 5000A exceeds Congress’ energy underneath a Commerce and a General Welfare Clauses of a U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Virginia argued that:

  • The particular word charge goes over a outdoor boundary of a Commerce Clause in that it requires differently reluctant participants to squeeze word from a private vendor, an mercantile activity “not historically theme to sovereign law underneath a Commerce Clause.”
  • The particular word charge and compared chastisement are not a legitimate practice of congressional energy to taxation underneath a General Welfare Clause.

Virginia also argued in a choice that Sec. 5000A conflicts with a Virginia Health Care Freedom Act and therefore violates a Tenth Amendment.

The court, in a opinion, pronounced a inherent issues boil down to “the singular doubt of either or not Congress has a energy to regulate—and tax—a citizen’s preference not to attend in widespread commerce.” It remarkable that, “No reported box from any sovereign appellate justice has extended a Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to embody a law of a person’s preference not to squeeze a product, notwithstanding a outcome on widespread commerce.”

The Department of Health and Human Services argued that a particular word charge is “well within a normal end of Congress’s Article we powers” and corrects systemic failures in a widespread health word market, that is within Congress’ energy to umpire underneath a Commerce Clause. The Department also doubtful Virginia’s row that a particular word charge compels people who do not wish to squeeze word to attend in a health word market. Rather, a Department argued, during some indicate each particular will need some form of health caring and, absent insurance, many will “shift a cost of that caring to a rest of society.”

The justice remarkable that, “Neither a Supreme Court nor any sovereign circuit justice of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to enforce an particular to involuntarily enter a tide of commerce by purchasing a commodity in a private market” and therefore hold that a particular word charge exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause powers.

The justice also hold that a chastisement is “in form and substance, a chastisement as against to a tax.” As a penalty, it contingency be related to an enumerated inherent energy (other than a General Welfare Clause). The justice found a chastisement to be related to a Commerce Clause and, given a justice had hold that a particular word charge exceeded Congress’ energy underneath a Commerce Clause, it hold that a chastisement was unconstitutional as well.

The justice refused to strike down a rest of a health caring remodel legislation, following a legal customary that “when opposed a inherent smirch in a statute, we try to extent a resolution to a problem, disjunction any ‘problematic portions while withdrawal a residue intact.’” Therefore, a justice practical a holding usually to a territory of a law during issue.

The justice also refused to request doing of Sec. 5000A since it does not take outcome until 2013 during a earliest, so minimizing a odds of lost mistreat in a deficiency of an claim and since a box will be appealed. As a justice noted, “the final word will positively reside with a aloft court.”

About Emil Estafanous, CPA
Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Tax Professional committed in representing taxpayers and resolving their tax problems.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Our clients are located throughout Southern California in cities such as Los Angeles, CPA: Whittier, Santa Fe Springs Accounting, Artesia, Cerritos CPA, Bellflower: Tax Preparation, Payroll: Downey, La Palma, Accountant: La Mirada, IRS Representation: Lakewood , Gardena, La Habra, Brea, Rancho Dominguez, Hacienda Heights, Torrance, Diamond Bar, South Bay, Pomona, Carson, Buena Park, La Puente, Orange, Anaheim, Fullerton, Seal Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Hawthorne, Santa Monica, Montebello, Pico Rivera, Newport Beach, Hollywood, and many more.