Shared Responsibility Payment

[Super Mom]

Why should us tax preparers be policing health care???!!!

I have a client with 5 exemptions, one of them had no health care all of 2015, my software is calculating the premium for one adult without coverage, the same as if they ALL had no coverage. Thinking that can't be right, but none of this junk makes good sense. Is that right?

[RitaB]

ACA cops at your service, America

Why should us tax preparers be policing health care???!!!

I have a client with 5 exemptions, one of them had no health care all of 2015, my software is calculating the premium for one adult without coverage, the same as if they ALL had no coverage. Thinking that can't be right, but none of this junk makes good sense. Is that right?

We are policing it because we are the only ones who can. Unfortunately for us.

"five exemptions" - Do you mean "five dependents"?

"calculating the premium" - Do you mean "calculating the shared responsibility payment"?

"is this right?" - No. There's a box or a question you've probably not checked or answered.

[Super Mom]

Ok, thanks, I will go over the form carefully again. When I say 5 exemptions I mean 2 adults and 3 children, just one adult did not have health care all of 2015. Hoping that penalty was wrong! Thanks!

[Super Mom]

Once again, I have carefully went over the form and all the checkboxes seem to be right, however, the penalty is the same for 1 adult without healthcare as ALL 5 without healthcare because is calculating 2% of income which is significantly more than the flat penalty.

[TaxGuyBill]

Once again, I have carefully went over the form and all the checkboxes seem to be right, however, the penalty is the same for 1 adult without healthcare as ALL 5 without healthcare because is calculating 2% of income which is significantly more than the flat penalty.

Yep, that is pretty common.

[Super Mom]

Yep, that is pretty common.

Really, so that could be right??????

[taxea]

Thank you Obama!

[RitaB]

Well, uh

"is this right?" - No. There's a box or a question you've probably not checked or answered.

Yep, that is pretty common.

Well, I see why they picked you, Bill. Not me.

[Bonnie]

Ones I have prepared, the penalty is different for 1 than it is for 5. And different if no coverage all 12 months verses just a few months becaue the penalty is per month. Doesn't seem right that it would be the same for 1 as for 5

[TaxGuyBill]

Well, I see why they picked you, Bill. Not me.

LOL.

Really, so that could be right??????

Yes. If the 'percentage penalty' is being applied, it is ONLY based on income. It doesn't matter if one person or 12 people are uninsured. It is ONLY based on income.

Obviously if more people are uninsured, the 'flat' penalty would increase, so the 'flat' penalty would be more likely to be larger than the 'percentage penalty'. When that is the case, the penalty varies depending on the number of uninsured people. However, that does not apply in your situation.

[Super Mom]

Wow, I had went over this over and over trying to find a mistake and could not find one. This is so unfair! Not to mention my time!!! Thanks Obama!!!!

[Super Mom]

Ones I have prepared, the penalty is different for 1 than it is for 5. And different if no coverage all 12 months verses just a few months becaue the penalty is per month. Doesn't seem right that it would be the same for 1 as for 5

I strongly agree, doesn't seem right at all, however it evidently is since the percentage of income is being applied.

[Super Mom]

This penalty, for one adult not having health insurance works out to $144.00 per month!! UNBELEIVABLE!!

[spanel]

This penalty, for one adult not having health insurance works out to $144.00 per month!! UNBELEIVABLE!!

What was the AGI?

Chris

[Super Mom]

The AGI is 110,201.