CurlTalk - View Single Post

journotraveler · 06-28-2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitschy

The SCOTUS did not approve a “mandate tax”
They simply ruled that it was a tax...one of the big arguments in the case was if the mandate was a penalty or a tax.
The SCOTUS simply ruled that it was a tax. They are prohibited from making a ruling on the Consitutionality of the tax by the Anti-Injunction Act until the tax is actually imposed (which will be in 2014).
They kicked the can down the road.

Nope. Read the ruling:

Quote:

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with
respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not
bar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of
restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those
subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual
mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as
a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care
Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label
cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction
Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–

In other words, (from Scotusblog):

Quote:

Before reaching the merits of the Affordable Care Act case, the Supreme Court held that that Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) – a statute that bars suits to restrain the collection of taxes – does not apply to suits challenging the individual mandate.