IRS ObamaCare “self-attestation” for businesses: adding irrationality to lawlessness

posted at 12:01 pm on February 13, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Three days after Treasury announced that businesses would have to certify under penalty of perjury that their staffing changes have nothing to do with ObamaCare, we have yet to hear one legal justification for such a demand. Yesterday, NRO’s Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, called this “lunatic,” and “adding irrationality to lawlessness” as Obama’s arbitrary treatments of the law collide:

Obama’s central command policies are inevitably crashing into each other. The waiver may provide some relief to endangered Democrats, but it also gives employers an incentive to lay off employees in order to get under 100 and qualify for the illegal waiver. So Obama has unilaterally legislated illegal conditions on the illegal waiver. To wit, employers will be required to certify to the IRS,under penalty of perjury, that the waiver was not a motivating factor in the company’s hiring and firing decisions. As Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt quips, “To avoidObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCarecosts.”

So now Obama, like a standard-issue leftist dictator, is complementing lawlessness with socialist irrationality.

Think about how lunatic this is. There is nothing even faintly illegal about businesses’ – indeed, all economic actors’ – making financial decisions based on tax consequences. (And remember, notwithstanding Obama’s misrepresentations to the contrary, Obamacare mandates are taxes – as Obama’s Justice Department argued and as Chief Justice Roberts & Co. concluded.) The tax consequences of Obamacare are profound – that is precisely the reason that Obama is “waiving” them. No responsible officers in a corporation of relevant size would fail to take them into account in making the decision to staff at over or under 100 employees; in determining whether some full-time employees should be terminated or shifted to part-time; or in making any number of the decisions Obamacare’s mind-numbing complexity requires.

The officers’ responsibility is to the owners of the company, the shareholders. The business exists to create value, not to provide employment – employing workers is a function of the value added to the enterprise, not the need to create a more favorable election environment for the statist political party. Corporate officers who overlooked material tax consequences would be unfit to be corporate officers.

What is illegal and irrational is not a company’s commonsense deliberation over its costs, it is Obama’s edict. And look what attends this one: criminal prosecution if Obama’s Justice Department decides the business has falsely certified that its staffing decision was not motivated by Obamacare.

In my column at The Fiscal Times, I call this an expression of impotence — and hypocrisy:

The Obama administration declined to specify exactly why this warning went out in the first place. It became necessary because employers have discovered just how much cost Obamacare will add to their ledgers. Democrats who pushed the employer mandate insisted at the time that businesses would find that the law bent the cost curve downward and would welcome its impact.

Instead, skyrocketing premiums and taxes have created a big jump in personnel costs (AOL CEO Tim Armstrong estimated it at $7 million annually), which employers will have to resolve either through staffing reductions, downward adjustments in compensation, or higher prices.

Small wonder, then, that the White House pushed the mandate enforcement deadline out even further for mid-sized employers. President Obama himself said that he wanted to keep businesses from dealing with the real-world consequences of the law. “Even with the tax credits,” Obama told reporters in a press conference, “in some cases they still can’t afford it, and we have hardship exemptions, phase-ins, to make sure that nobody is unnecessarily burdened.” …

Furthermore, the sudden demand that businesses stop adjusting for regulatory policy is nearly the height of hypocrisy for this administration, which has repeatedly offered short-term gimmicky tax credits for business decisions that boost its policies, including an ill-considered credit for hiring that ended up costing taxpayers millions for hiring decisions that would have been made anyway. Suddenly, the Obama administration has to take action outside of the law because employers respond to regulatory signals more predictably than one-off credits.

In other words, it’s a demonstration of arbitrary power, of precisely the kind predicted by Hayek. And it’s no longer just opponents of the ACA noticing.

James Taranto called it “OmertàCare” in yesterday’s Best of the Web:

The specific regulation is on page 124 of this PDF from the Federal Register. It stipulates that the full exemption for the mandate applies if “the employer does not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition”–that is, if it doesn’t fire workers to get below 100:

A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition. For example, reductions of workforce size or overall hours of service because of business activity such as the sale of a division, changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates, terminations of employment for poor performance, or other similar changes unrelated to eligibility for the transition relief provided in this section XV.D.6 are for bona fide business reasons and will not affect eligibility for that transition relief.Legal or regulatory changes that affect the cost of labor would fall into the category of “changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates.” So it would be more precise to say that employers may cut back employment for any bona fide business reason except to take advantage of the ObamaCare mandate delay.

The administration thus acknowledges that its policy creates a perverse incentive and orders employers not to act upon it. But that can’t be enforced. A business will take into account all relevant factors, including the additional costs imposed by ObamaCare, in making decisions about hiring and firing, including whether to terminate employees for poor performance, sell a division, etc. In practice, the new rule is a ban–under threat of criminal liability–on acknowledging the perverse incentive. Call it OmertàCare, a government-imposed conspiracy of silence.

In other words, the legal justification for this “self-attestation” springs from an illegal action by the Obama administration, as a means to include the company in the increasingly-arbitrary application of regulation based on ignoring the statutes of the law itself. It’s lawless lunacy, certainly. But as I argued in my column, that’s precisely the outcome predicted by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

Jason Pye wraps it up:

The law clearly states that the employer mandate was to take effect at the beginning of 2014. The administration delayed it for a year because of thenegative headlines. Now, with Democrats’ control of the Senate on the line, the administration delayed it again.

Not only does the law say that the employer mandate was supposed to take effect, there is absolutely no authority anywhere in its text to require an employer to meet this completely arbitrary criteria.

So rather than be honest about the effect that the mandate is having on employers and their workers, the administration wants to put business owners in the tough position of doing something they financially may not be able to afford or lie to a powerful federal agency. That makes no sense at all.

Just like OmertàCare.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I have only one thing to say about that headline. What?

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Impotence, indeed.

John the Libertarian on February 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM

The IRS runs this shiite storm, so the same rule applies: prove you didn’t break the law. Or in this case, the whim.

Akzed on February 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

One of new trolls says that the ACA specifically has language allowing The Won to make these changes at will. Is that true or just wishful thinking?

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Next up – EVERYONE must sign on their tax return an oath of submission and loyalty to the Grand Emperor Messiah 0barky.

dentarthurdent on February 13, 2014 at 12:08 PM

nothing to see here, move along
-lefties

cmsinaz on February 13, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Akzed on February 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

That’s another question. My father had a few run ins with the IRS and they have their own court system and rules. From what he told me, in order to go court with the IRS you have to pay what they say you owe up front. And their way of determining what you is very very interesting. So how will this work?

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM

One of new trolls says that the ACA specifically has language allowing The Won to make these changes at will. Is that true or just wishful thinking?

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

…just a wet dream!

KOOLAID2 on February 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM

So, at what point do we seriously start looking at impeachment here? If this was Bill Clinton, the call for it would already be ringing out.

Have we as Americans truely become 3rd world marionettes swaying to this symphony of destruction?

Endunamoo on February 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Time for General Strikes and widespread Civil Disobedience directed at this lawless Regime.

ConstantineXI on February 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM

It’s not irrational. It’s not hypocrisy. It’s thuggery and corruption, plain and simple. Businesses are going to do what they need to do, and they’ll sign whatever attestations they need to sign. Then, the businesses that step out of line will be investigated for lying on their attestations–and one federal investigation is pretty much all it takes to destroy a small business, even without actual charges being filed. Meanwhile, when someone says “Obamacare is costing America jobs”, the regime’s propaganda outlets get to say “nuh-uh! Absolutely 100% of all businesses swear under penalty of perjury that that’s a lie! FOUR PINOCCHIOS FOR YOU, ANARCHO-TEAPARTYIST!”

Fabozz on February 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

There is a third option for small business owners: The Fifth Amendment.

Every responsible business owner should refuse to sign this “attestation”, which is nothing more than an invitation to indictment or bankruptcy – or both.

Hucklebuck on February 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Endunamoo on February 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM

You’ve seen the Republicans, right?

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

One of new trolls says that the ACA specifically has language allowing The Won to make these changes at will. Is that true or just wishful thinking?
Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Were they able to cite this provision of the law? Didn’t think so.

tommyboy on February 13, 2014 at 12:15 PM

The GOP leadership has been screaming about this to every media outlet they can….
Wait, are they even aware of it..?

d1carter on February 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM

REVOLT!

Shy Guy on February 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM

adding irrationality to lawlessness

Yeah, from your POV, it is…..from Bammy’s admin it makes perfect sense.

hawkeye54 on February 13, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Not only does the law say that the employer mandate was supposed to take effect, there is absolutely no authority anywhere in its text to require an employer to meet this completely arbitrary criteria.

Alice in Wonderland territory. The law means only what Dear Liar says it means. Black and white text can be ignored and non-existent provisions must be followed.

rbj on February 13, 2014 at 12:17 PM

tommyboy on February 13, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Yeah, I think it went something like this. You’re a racist. Just kidding, he didn’t say that but nor did he provide proof.

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:18 PM

There is a third option for small business owners: The Fifth Amendment.

Every responsible business owner should refuse to sign this “attestation”, which is nothing more than an invitation to indictment or bankruptcy – or both.

Hucklebuck on February 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

The MSM and Obama will immediately start a “What has X got to hide?” campaign, ignoring of course that Lois Lerner took the Fifth.

Any company that admits it laid off people will be branded an Enemy of the State, and the CEO will have pitchfork protesters outside his home.

Wethal on February 13, 2014 at 12:19 PM

I’m sure you’ve heard of Potemkin villages.

We are a Potemkin republic.

steebo77 on February 13, 2014 at 12:20 PM

REVOLT!

Shy Guy on February 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM

It sure seems to be leading up to that…….if there exists enough true patriots who’ve feel that they have had enough to organize and get the ball rolling.

Bammy’s admin no doubt already has contingency plans should this ever come to pass.

Our future does not bode well. It’s really gonna get ugly.

hawkeye54 on February 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM

I keep thinking that the last thing this administration has done is the most shockingly stupid, unconstitutional, illegal, power-grabbing piece of idiocy to come down the tracks and that they cannot possibly top that one.

And yet they keep surprising me. :shakes head in disgust:

xNavigator on February 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Business owner: No I didn’t fire them to save money on my healthcare expenses. I did it so they can work on poetry and tuck their kids in at night.

Spider79 on February 13, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Someone wake John Boehner up and tell him…..oh never mind.

Big Orange on February 13, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I keep thinking that the last thing this administration has done is the most shockingly stupid, unconstitutional, illegal, power-grabbing piece of idiocy to come down the tracks and that they cannot possibly top that one.

And yet they keep surprising me. :shakes head in disgust:

xNavigator on February 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Worse power grabbing surprises to come, I think. Although, by now, nothing this admin does should come as a surprise.

hawkeye54 on February 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM

OmertàCare.

Get with the French times, Ed.

It’s Merde’care’.

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Rather

Merdecare

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Three days after Treasury announced that businesses would have to certify under penalty of perjury that their staffing changes have nothing to do with Obama’Care’

This is illegal!!!

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 12:25 PM

To the thin-skinned, petulant, narcissistic, and fascist resident of the WH, power exists to be used- therefore he will use it as he sees fit in order to advance his agenda – and do so daring the opposition to take action against him and his fellow thugs. As far as he is concerned, the law is what he says it is.

The ends justifies the means – and in this case, the overriding end is ‘fundamental change’.

Athos on February 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Someone wake John Boehner up and tell him…..oh never mind.

Big Orange on February 13, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I suspect it isn’t only tobacco he’s been smoking. Just saying.

hawkeye54 on February 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Not only does the law say that the employer mandate was supposed to take effect, there is absolutely no authority anywhere in its text to require an employer to meet this completely arbitrary criteria.

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Where are all the lawsuits?

albill on February 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Where are all the lawsuits?

albill on February 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM

I think they’re going to have hearings on that.

Yes.. that was sarcasm.

JellyToast on February 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Obama’s next great idea:

Self check out for Federal Prisons.

portlandon on February 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM

And yet they keep surprising me. :shakes head in disgust:

xNavigator on February 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Remember that Einstein said that there were only two infinite things:
Space and Stupidity.

Space is expanding.

Therefore more stupidity must be generated to fill it.

ajacksonian on February 13, 2014 at 12:43 PM

When can we expect exemptions from this requirement granted to businesses owned by Obama donors?

Left Coast Right Mind on February 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Where are all the lawsuits?

They all work in the current “Justice Department” LOL

LeftCoastRight on February 13, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Irrationality? I would use another word that begins with “I.” Intimidation, pure and simple.

NavyMustang on February 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM

One of new trolls says that the ACA specifically has language allowing The Won to make these changes at will. Is that true or just wishful thinking?

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM

No, it is not true.

The executive may alter aspects of a law already implemented, but is not permitted to arbitrarily decide when said law is implemented.

The “Constitutional law professor’s” ignorance and/or deliberate obtuseness strikes again.

Eric in Hollywood on February 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Of course he can do this.

It’s right there in the “good and plenty” clause you racist teabaggers.

BacaDog on February 13, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Obama’s central command policies are inevitably crashing into each other. The waiver may provide some relief to endangered Democrats, but it also gives employers an incentive to lay off employees in order to get under 100 and qualify for the illegal waiver. So Obama has unilaterally legislated illegal conditions on the illegal waiver. To wit, employers will be required to certify to the IRS,under penalty of perjury, that the waiver was not a motivating factor in the company’s hiring and firing decisions. As Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt quips, “To avoidObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCarecosts.”

Good luck trying to enforce this in court. Courts decide cases based on statutes voted by Congress, not executive orders.

There may be another way for employers to avoid paying higher Obamacare costs and laying off employees–breaking up companies into smaller corporate entities.

For example, if a company has 150 employees, and 80 employees manufacture a product and 70 employees market it, the company splits into a manufacturing company and a marketing company, which is the sole client of the manufacturing company. Each company has less than 100 employees, and this would not be illegal, since both companies could buy from and sell to competitors.

Steve Z on February 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Wouldn’t this help to release folks from Job-Lock by incentivizing corporations to reduce staffing to 99 or less employees. The goal post changes so much I think I may need to attend a re-education camp.

tej on February 13, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Business owner: No I didn’t fire them to save money on my healthcare expenses. I did it so they can work on poetry and tuck their kids in at night.

Spider79 on February 13, 2014 at 12:23 PM

DING!DING!DING!

NOMOBO on February 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Starve the beast throughout the year. Claim enough payroll deductions to eliminate withholding through the year, and, maintain a fund to pay tax liabilities out of pocket. Make them squirm for cash flow.

butch on February 13, 2014 at 12:56 PM

I fired them because they’re liberal.

Next question.

Bishop on February 13, 2014 at 1:00 PM

There may be another way for employers to avoid paying higher Obamacare costs and laying off employees–breaking up companies into smaller corporate entities.

Steve Z on February 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM

That’s an interesting idea. I hadn’t thought of that. It’s probably what will happen.

WhatSlushfund on February 13, 2014 at 1:01 PM

If I open another business, I’m going to register the corporation as “Less Than 50 Employees Because F ObamaCare, Inc.”.

For obvious reasons.

orangemtl on February 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM

IRS ObamaCare “self-attestation” for businesses.

So basically it’s “You tie the rope and then stick your own head thru the noose if you don’t do as we command..we’ll be busy with other crimes.”

Mimzey on February 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Revolution is coming and – they, the fascists, will lose. We don’t know the extent of casualties in the first American Revolution, but this one will be much higher – but worth the sacrifice – and yes, for the children.

HomeoftheBrave on February 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Atlas shrugged.

HotJavaJack on February 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM

There is nothing even faintly illegal about businesses’ – indeed, all economic actors’ – making financial decisions based on tax consequences.

It not just legal, shaping business decisions if the entirely the point of most tax breaks.

agmartin on February 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM

I’m still waiting for The Chosen One to change His title to King Barack I.

GarandFan on February 13, 2014 at 1:14 PM

That’s another question. My father had a few run ins with the IRS and they have their own court system and rules. From what he told me, in order to go court with the IRS you have to pay what they say you owe up front. And their way of determining what you is very very interesting. So how will this work?

Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM

The way to successfully fight the IRS is out of court using their own rules against them. It’s extremely difficult, but when done correctly, very effective.

(It involves using the Rule of Commerce, not the Rule of Law.)

UnstChem on February 13, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Where are all the lawsuits?

albill on February 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM

You would probably have to show actual harm, not potential harm in order to have the standing to sue. In other words, you have to sit back and wait for them to destroy you before you can stop them.

Wendya on February 13, 2014 at 1:29 PM

How can anyone call obama’s actions expressions of impotence? To the contrary, obama is demonstrating that he is in fact omnipotent. It is we complainers who reek of impotence.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 13, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Well, this is just a logical extension of the union-controlled Democratic party. We all know the unions run the Democrats, so now the Obama administration wants to make everyone in this country a union worker.

How so? Did you ever try to fire a union worker, such as a teacher (especially with tenure) or a GM worker? It is next to impossible and it costs the employer a fortune to even try. So now the IRS wants to make firing a person or laying them off just as difficult as getting rid of a union worker, just like it is in France.

And how’s that working out in France? It’s a country that always has to deal with chronically high unemployment, low economic growth, sky-high taxes, and poor job opportunities. THIS is what we have to look forward to, because that’s the liberal and socialist way of doing things. It is irrelevant to a socialist if your life stinks. It just has to stink for everyone. THAT is what they want.

Libertyship46 on February 13, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Hypocritical obama-shit-consumers, this is for y’all.

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 1:35 PM

There is a third option for small business owners: The Fifth Amendment.

Every responsible business owner should refuse to sign this “attestation”, which is nothing more than an invitation to indictment or bankruptcy – or both.

Hucklebuck on February 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

It won’t work. It is why they ran ACA through the IRS. You have to prove your innocence, or they seize everything you own.

The 16th Amendment was an abomination. Everyone who voted for it should be shot, if they weren’t already all dead.

We got the 16th after decades of reckless immigration just like we’ve had now for the last 50 years.

Immigration is like adding salt to your food. A little bit helps to preserve it. Too much and it kills you.

We’ve had way too much. We have been poisoned, and the Republic is dying. Close the damned border. Now.

fadetogray on February 13, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Wow. Let’s review Point One of Directive 10-289

Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

airupthere on February 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM

I think this could be challenged as arbitrary and capricious. What else could they make you attest that you have not thought about? Jimmy Carter had some impure thoughts….How would you know if you laid someone off because you didn’t have the money to match their Social Security payment or was that the money you needed for insurance, if you didn’t really need them if you downsize?

They might also want you to swear that you did not eat bacon and transfats, or think about it, while you were deciding who to lay off.

Fleuries on February 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I fired them because they’re liberal.

Next question.

Bishop on February 13, 2014 at 1:00 PM

This x1000

Will someone please start drawing up the articles of impeachment???

HughJass on February 13, 2014 at 1:59 PM

They don’t actually care if you trim your workforce to avoid the outrageous financial burdens of Obamacare. They just don’t want you stating that fact in to the public.

Just like the terrorist attack in Benghazi, they don’t want the actual truth of Obamacare hurting their reelection efforts.

Attesting to the lie to the IRS simply keeps you from being able to tell the real truth to the public.

Oxymoron on February 13, 2014 at 1:59 PM

And the Republicans are doing what about this? Has any Republican Senator or Representative said anything significant about this? What about the leadership? And if so, are they following their words up with actions?

It’s all well and good to point and say “Oh wow look how awful this is”. It’s another thing entirely to do something about it.

Paperclips on February 13, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Seriously is there anyone out there who will start calling for civil disobedience? We need a Moses to lead us out of the wilderness. I will do what I can but its time for us to realize that a million anti-ocare march is overdue. How about a million unemployed march? Or a million for the Constitution march? We need to get ip on this fascist governments grill. This is America da-n it! When are we going to get angry and say enough?

neyney on February 13, 2014 at 2:26 PM

It’s all well and good to point and say “Oh wow look how awful this is”. It’s another thing entirely to do something about it.

Paperclips on February 13, 2014 at 2:10 PM

I agree. The problem is that they (gop) are not even pointing, let alone saying anything about it. They seem to be just like…you know…the liberal media. They aren’t saying or pointing anything out either. Why is that?

Mimzey on February 13, 2014 at 2:26 PM

This is illegal!!!

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Remember Nixon saying “it’s not illegal if the president does it”?

With Barry, it’s not illegal if he orders it to be done — and he can change his mind on a whim (“it’s good to be president, because it means I can do whatever I want”), and you plebes better keep up with his irrational and ever-changing demands if you know what’s good for you!

When I was a kid I used to wonder how the Germans and Russians and Chinese allowed ruthless and power-mad dictators to take over their governments and kill millions of their people. Sadly, I find myself lately seeing how easily it can happen.

AZCoyote on February 13, 2014 at 2:31 PM

They don’t actually care if you trim your workforce to avoid the outrageous financial burdens of Obamacare. They just don’t want you stating that fact in to the public.

Just like the terrorist attack in Benghazi, they don’t want the actual truth of Obamacare hurting their reelection efforts.

Attesting to the lie to the IRS simply keeps you from being able to tell the real truth to the public.

Oxymoron on February 13, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Bears repeating.

Rush was all over this yesterday and I nearly drove in a ditch I was so damned mad.

Not a smidgen of corruption at the IRS, my patootie.

tru2tx on February 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM

With the level of disregard for the constitution, I wonder if it will be ex post facto so those companies who have already announced they have made changes due to Obamacare and then got a bit of reprieve will now have to not use Obamacare when they go ahead with the change in staffing? Must be really nice for the government to be able to make these business people lie for them.

evie1949 on February 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM

But these Obamacare posts are about whistling past the graveyard, by next Novemeber Democrats will be openly running on the ACA. Mark my words.
libfreeordie on December 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Why are the Republican’s not saying anything about this Dictator? It’s only because they are as corrupt as the Democrats. Throw them all out and start over with people who care about this country and the citizens!
It’s third party time because we only have a single party system now.

flytier on February 13, 2014 at 3:18 PM

I’m busy so this one is hit and run. If someone has already linked it, my apologies. Hopefully will check back later.

ACA, IRS, and Perverse Incentives

novaculus on February 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Why are the Republican’s not saying anything about this Dictator?

Fear of a Black President, to paraphrase Flav.

Hucklebuck on February 13, 2014 at 3:37 PM

So how long before they make Apple attest that keeping their cash horde offshore has nothing to do with paying taxes?

See what we can do with this new rule?

Lefties everywhere rejoice.

goflyers on February 13, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Facism.

lea on February 13, 2014 at 5:04 PM

There is a third option for small business owners: The Fifth Amendment.

Every responsible business owner should refuse to sign this “attestation”, which is nothing more than an invitation to indictment or bankruptcy – or both.

Hucklebuck on February 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Exactly, because being audited once a week won’t bankrupt you; you’ve got tens of millions for lawyers when the IRS, FDA, OSHA, ATF, FBI, and every other Executive Branch group just “coincidentally” launches an investigation on you… right?

Oh, you don’t and that’ll bankrupt you too?

In other words:

Nice business you’ve got here, shame if anything should happen to it after you make Obama look bad. Real flammable looking stuff here…

gekkobear on February 13, 2014 at 5:17 PM

This is amazing stuff, coming from the man that was supposed to heal the oceans. Never in my lifetime did I expect to see this blatant disregard for the law by a president of the United States.

Ryderz on February 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM

That’s another question. My father had a few run ins with the IRS and they have their own court system and rules. From what he told me, in order to go court with the IRS you have to pay what they say you owe up front. And their way of determining what you is very very interesting. So how will this work? Cindy Munford on February 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM

When you file your taxes you waive your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. this is the charade of the “voluntary” nature of our tax collection system.

A constitutional system would be that the feds bill the states and the states collect the taxes by presenting us with a tax bill, detailing what we owe. In other words, apportionment.

The direct taxation of citizens by the feds is tyranny. Otherwise, why would be have to go hat in hand to the IRS and prove we didn’t break the law?

Because the penalty has been ruled a tax, and the IRS is administering it, you can bet your bippy that 0b00ba has been assured that this will fly.

We should call it “The Roberts Rule.”

Akzed on February 13, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Directive 10-289 is now in effect.

The alarm is trying desperately to waken you, people. Quit hitting the snooze button.

Freelancer on February 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM