Close
Close

Tax Court rules couple must repay Affordable Care Act premium tax credit

RFP
Tax Court rules couple must repay Affordable Care Act premium tax creditIn the first of what is nearly certain to be a long line of cases, the U.S. Tax Court ruled in Walker v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2017-50 (July 12, 2017), that a couple who received an advanced premium tax credit in 2014 was required to repay the entire advanced amount because they did not qualify for the credit. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established a premium tax credit to assist eligible taxpayers with the cost of their premiums for health insurance purchased through an exchange.

A taxpayer generally qualifies for the premium tax credit if his or her household’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is at least 100%, but not greater than 400%, of the federal poverty line amount for the taxpayer’s family size. This premium tax credit may be advanced to taxpayers in order to help them pay the insurance premiums as they become due. The amount of the advanced credit is based upon the exchange’s estimate of the premium tax credit that the taxpayer may be entitled to claim on his or her income tax return. When the taxpayer files his or her income tax return, the taxpayer who received an advanced credit must reconcile the advanced credit payments made during the year with the amount of the premium tax credit for which he or she is actually eligible.

Under the facts the case, the taxpayers enrolled in health insurance for 2014 through Covered California, a health insurance exchange. Their monthly premium for their health insurance coverage was $1,378. They elected to receive a monthly advance of the premium tax credit of $1,077 ($12,924 in aggregate) to cover part of the cost of the insurance, and this amount was paid on behalf of the taxpayers to the insurer. The taxpayers filed a Form 8962, “Premium Tax Credit (PTC)” with the IRS to report $75,199 of MAGI for 2014, which was in excess of 400%of the 2014 poverty line for a family of two.

The taxpayers asserted in court that they were informed by Covered California that they qualified for the premium tax credit, and that they would not have purchased insurance through Covered California if they had known that they did not qualify for the premium tax credit. While the Tax Court was sympathetic to their plight, the court ruled that the couple was required to repay the government the full $12,924 that was advanced to them in 2014 because they were not eligible for the premium tax credit. The court noted that even though it appeared that Covered California may have incorrectly informed the taxpayers that they were eligible for the advanced credit in 2014, the court was bound by the statute as written. The IRS had originally imposed a $2,584 accuracy-related penalty under Section 6662(a) in its notice of deficiency to the taxpayers, but the IRS conceded this penalty at trial.

Contact Eddie Adkins
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1565

Jeffrey Martin
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1526

Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.