Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am involved in a thread about this over on the health insurance forum and just today have been told simply to lie about my expected 2018 income to push it over the 100% FPL of $12,060 so that I can get the maximum health insurance subsidy possible even though I do not expect to make that much next year. The rationale is that the IRS (for 8962 instructions, line 28) states that the MAX penalty for doing so is only $300 - which is less than 1 month's premium at full cost.
...have been told ... to push it over the 100% FPL of $12,060
so that I can get the maximum health insurance subsidy possible
even though I do not expect to make that much next year.
How much less than the $12,060 do you believe is more likely?
And what would it take to ACTUALLY earn the difference?
Quote:
...the IRS (for 8962 instructions, line 28) states that the MAX penalty for doing so is only $300
What about the bills for the coverage you got?
That'll be a LOT more than $300.
1) In my estimation "LYING" is intentional. (Put aside the fact that you already say you don't expect to make that much.)
2) How can you ask a person for a projected (unknown) number and then say s/he LIED when s/he told you what it was. By definition a projected number can't be a lie. It can turn out to not be correct, but it can't be a LIE.
The ACA -- or the marketplace -- bases the subsidy on EXPECTED salary. If a person says they expected to make 25K, and actually ended up making 35K -- which in a hypothetical example could (later) make them ineligible for a subsidy or only eligible for a lower subsidy than it turns out they're entitled to -- so be it.
3) Any tax refund could be reduced by the amount of subsidy overpayment. But, that person I think would have every right to fight any attempt to assess a penalty for LYING.
Yep, "penalty" means something different in the tax world so you confuse the issue by using that word. What you are really talking about is the cap on repayments, which if you are single would be $300.
I think you are fine estimating the $12060 but I'm not sure this is sustainable - what happens next year? I'm not sure they will keep allowing you to overestimate indefinitely.
I'm not sure they will keep allowing you to overestimate indefinitely.
If there's nothing in the law (the ACA, and or any directive, or executive order) that gives the IRS the ability to oversee this darn mess -- then unless they change the law/directive or order -- what's to stop indefinite overestimating?
True, the law could be changed or an order could be amended to address -- uh -- unintended consequences....but with the current admin being so anti ACA in the first place -- who knows what might be done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
