How Much is the Obamacare Penalty? What You’ll Pay For Not Having Health Insurance

This Saturday is the start of open enrollment for Covered California Healthcare Coverage. If you need health insurance and/or have any questions please feel to call me at 909-570-1103.

Don’t get penalized, it is a lot more than you think, see image below:

?
via:NerdWallet Health

The cost of the Obamacare penalty in 2014
If you went without “essential health benefits” for more than three months in 2014 and didn’t qualify for an exemption, you will be required to submit to the penalty on your tax return.

The cost of the 2014 Obamacare penalty is calculated in one of two ways, with you paying the higher amount. The penalty is either 1% of your taxable income, or it is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child with a maximum amount of $285.

Taxable income is figured every year on your tax return and includes your salary and adjustments for any additional income, exemptions and deductions. Your tax return walks you through how to determine this figure and will likewise help you determine the amount of your penalty.

So, for example, if a single person’s 2014 taxable income was $22,500, her 1% would be $225, far more than the individual penalty of $95 per adult. Therefore, she would be penalized the $225 because it is the greater of two fees.

Another example: If a single-income household with two adults and three children brings in $27,000, their 1% fee would be $270, but their flat fee would be $285. Their penalty would be $285, as it is the greater of the two options.

Video: How does ACA Tax Credit Work

I have been getting quite a bit of questions about how does the tax credit work with ACA/Covered California? I found this great short video that explains it. If you have any questions call me direct 909-570-1103

Open enrollment for ACA/Coverage California opens this Saturday, November 15, 2015, if you have questions or would like to setup an appointment, call me direct at 909-570-1103

 

 

The IRS Reminds Tax Pros of Direct Deposit Limits

WASHINGTON, D.C. (NOVEMBER 10, 2014)
BY JEFF STIMPSON

The IRS is reminding tax professionals and taxpayers that procedures kick in this January to limit to three the number of refunds electronically deposited into a single financial account or onto a pre-paid debit card. The fourth and subsequent refunds automatically will convert to a paper refund check and be mailed to the taxpayer.


The tactic, which applies to financial accounts such as bank savings or checking accounts and to prepaid, reloadable cards or debit cards, is part of an IRS effort to combat fraud and ID theft.

The new limitation also is also designed to protect taxpayers from preparers who obtain payment for their tax prep services by depositing part or all of their clients’ refunds into the preparers’ own bank accounts.

Taxpayers will receive a notice informing them that the account exceeds the direct deposit limits, and that they will receive a paper refund check in approximately four weeks, barring any other issues with the return.

Direct deposit must only be made to accounts bearing the taxpayer’s name.

Circuit Court: Collection Letter from Law Firm Demanding Payment Violates FDCPA

I think the appeals court got it right, article is below. I believe that PRA and other “debt” buyers are committing fraud. Oh, and so are the creditors that sell the bad debt.

When an original creditor gets rid of the debt by charging it off, they get paid through insurance and also that tax deduction.

The debt is no more! Its gone. Why on earth are they allowed to sell debt that doesn’t exist any more?
Why can they get rid of a debt then say someone still has a balance owed and a past due? The debt is gone!

Well, this case shows a step in the right direction in my opinion

– Carlos

————————————————————————————–

In a split decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court ruling that a collection letter send by a law firm violated the FDCPA because it gave the impression that the consumer could not dispute the debt and that payment was the only option to avoid litigation.

The case, Pollard v. Law Office of Mandy L. Spaulding, began after the consumer received an initial communication from Spaulding demanding payment for a $611 debt. Spaulding had been contracted after at least one other collection agency had attempted to recover the debt.

The letter from Spaulding was written on firm letterhead and was signed by the attorney. Despite containing the required disclosures, the plaintiff felt that the strongly-worded language used in the letter, and even the disclosure language itself, overshadowed her right to dispute.

At particular issue was the use of the phrases “not inclined to use further resources attempting to collect this debt before filing suit” and that the attorney was “obligated to my client to pursue the next logical course of action without delay” in the body of the letter. In addition, the letter included what the First Circuit majority called “hopelessly scrambled syntax” in its disclosure that the consumer has the right to dispute:

“We further inform you that despite the fact that you have a thirty (30) day period to dispute the debt may not preclude the filing of legal action against you prior to the expiration of the period.”

The majority affirmed the lower court decision using a standard “viewed from the perspective of the hypothetical unsophisticated consumer.” The judges said that “a collection letter is confusing if, after reading it, the unsophisticated consumer would be left unsure of her right to dispute the debt and request information concerning the original creditor.”

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Bobby Ray Baldock – of the 10th Circuit, but sitting by designation – noted that Spaulding may have implicitly demanded immediate payment “by expressing an intent to litigate immediately,” but that was her right, as conceded by the majority.

“So, if debt collectors are free to litigate immediately, and free to tell consumers they will litigate immediately sans payment, how is this letter improper?” wrote Baldock. He noted that the letter as a whole is relatively straightforward and did not overshadow the disclosure of dispute rights in dissenting with the majority opinion.