ACA penalty as % of income if some members are covered

[Gretel]

I just want to double check on a conclusion of mine since I haven't had much of real world experience to confirm.

If flat dollar amount applies, then it makes a difference in the penalty if some members of the household are covered and some are not.

...but if % of income must be used then it does not make a difference, meaning if just one member of the tax household is not covered, the full penalty must be paid.

[ttbtaxes]

That's my understanding.

[zeros]

My Understanding Also

It didn't make a lot of sense for this to happen but I think thats the way it works. Strange, that one person can incur all the wrath!

[TXEA]

I am working on my one and only return for a client that refuses to buy health insurance. Dependent grandson is covered under Medicaid (CHIP) in Texas. Wife refused employer sponsored coverage that was at no cost to her, so all the unaffordable calculations go away for her.

Husband did not have coverage, and it may be unaffordable (8% test) however it does not seem to matter since the one individual (wife) results in the penalty at 1%.

So, it does seem when the penalty is based on the % that the same penalty applies regardless of the number un-insured members of the household.

Would anyone have a difference in opinion. As I stated, this is my only one of these for 2014, so I may have missed something.