READ MY LIPS - REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS BAD!

 

Congress is currently considering several federal income tax proposals from both sides of “the aisle”.  One item being considered is reviving the COVID-19 inspired practice of sending monthly checks to families as advanced payment of the Child Tax Credit, which must be reconciled on the Form 1040.

The greatest source of federal tax fraud, Tax Code complexity, taxpayer confusion, and tax preparer agita is refundable tax credits.

As an example, quoting a recent BUZZ item (highlight is mine) –

“The EITC {Earned Income Tax Credit, which is refundable – rdf} has a long history of erroneous overpayments. Indeed, based on the data available on PaymentAccuracy.gov, between 2004 and 2022, the EITC error rate averaged 25 percent. After adjusting for inflation, EITC overpayments totaled $351 billion over that 18-year period.”

As a professional tax preparer, I always claimed the full amount of tax credits and other benefits to which my clients were entitled under tax law – but as a citizen and taxpayer I oppose most of at least the credits and all refundable components.

Refundable tax credits are a major part of a larger problem - the erroneous practice, an apparent favorite of Congress, of distributing federal welfare and other social program benefits via the Tax Code.

Let me re repeat what I have been saying for years – I very seriously and sincerely believe that the one and only purpose of the federal tax system is to raise the money necessary to fund the government. 

The federal income tax system should –

(1) Be simple – easy for everyone to understand.  Simplicity for simplicity’s sake.

(2) Be fair and equitable - treat all taxpayers equally.

(3) Be consistent – treat specific conditions, situations, and activities, and maintain specific definitions and descriptions, the same in all instances.

(4) Encourage savings, investment, and growth.

(5) Index for inflation all allowable deductions and credits.

The Tax Code should not –

(1) Be used for social engineering, to redistribute income or wealth, or to deliver social welfare and other government benefits.

(2) Encourage or discourage certain economic decisions (other than savings, investment, and growth), or provide exclusive benefits for specific industries, business activities, or classes of taxpayers.

(3) Contain any refundable credits.

(4) Contain any phase-outs, exclusions or adjustments based on Adjusted Gross Income or Modified Adjusted Gross Income.

(5) Contain any “alternative” tax calculation systems (such as the current “Alternative Minimum Tax”).

(6) Contain any temporary deductions, credits, benefits, or provisions.

The Internal Revenue Service, and the tax professional community, should not be required to act as Social Workers and administer and verify government program benefit payments.  This practice is not only inappropriate, but it also invites and encourages tax fraud.

I am not saying that the government shouldn’t provide financial assistance to the working poor and college students, provide encouragements for purchasing health insurance, making energy-saving purchases and improvements and other ‘worthy’ actions.  What I am saying is that such assistance and encouragements should not be distributed via the Form 1040.

The benefits provided by the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable Child Tax Credit should be distributed via existing federal welfare programs for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The benefits provided by the education tax credits and deduction for tuition and fees should be distributed via existing federal programs for providing direct student financial aid. The benefits provided by the Premium Tax Credit, the energy credits, and other such personal and business credits should be distributed via direct discount payments to the appropriate vendors or direct rebate programs, similar to the successful Cash for Clunkers program of a few years ago, funded by the budget of the appropriate Cabinet departments.

Distributing the benefits in this manner is much better than the current method for many reasons:

(1) It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of the subsidy, discount or rebate actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud. And tax preparers, and the IRS, would no longer need to take on the added responsibility of having to verify that a person qualifies for government benefits.

(2) The qualifying individuals would get the money at the “point of purchase,” when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and wait to be reimbursed when they file their tax return.

(3) We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the infamous “47 percent” of Americans - who either pay no income tax or get a “gift” from the government by filing a tax return - would still be receiving government benefits, but it would not be done through the income tax system, so they would actually be paying federal income tax.

(4) We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, energy and welfare programs in the federal budget because benefit payments would be properly allocated to the appropriate departments.

Your thoughts?

TTFN

READ MY LIPS - NO REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS!

Congress has been obsessed with using refundable credits as a form of “negative income tax” in an attempt to redistribute income to lower earners.   It began with the Earned Income Credit, recently added the Additional Child Tax Credit, American Opportunity Credit and Premium Tax Credit and during COVID included the Recovery Rebate Credit and temporarily made the basic Child Tax Credit and Credit for Child and Dependent Care refundable.  A component of the so-far unsuccessful Build Back Better legislation is the expansion of refundable credits.

Refundable tax credits are bad tax policy.  The main cause of complexity in the Tax Code and tax return errors is the use of the Form 1040 to deliver social welfare and other government benefits, often through the use of refundable credits.  And the majority of tax fraud involves refundable credits.  The IRS estimates that 21-26% of all EITC claims are erroneous.

I would not necessarily object to credits in excess of tax liability being carried forward to future tax years – but I vehemently oppose all refundable credits.  And I actually oppose the existence of some tax credits.  That said I must point out that I have always claimed all tax credits to which my clients were entitled under the law over the years, regardless of my personal opinion concerning the appropriateness of the credits.

The one and only purpose of the federal income tax system is to raise the money necessary to fund the government.  The US Tax Code must never be used for social engineering, to redistribute income or wealth, or to deliver social welfare and other government benefits.  

For many years I have been saying that the Internal Revenue Service, and the tax professional community, should not be required to act as Social Workers and administer and verify government program benefit payments.

I am not saying that the government shouldn’t provide financial assistance to the working poor and college students, provide encouragements for purchasing health insurance, making energy-saving purchases and improvements and other ‘worthy’ actions.  What I am saying is that such assistance and encouragements should not be distributed via the Form 1040.

The benefits provided by the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable Child Tax Credit should be distributed via existing federal welfare programs for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The benefits provided by the education tax credits and deduction for tuition and fees should be distributed via existing federal programs for providing direct student financial aid. The benefits provided by the Premium Tax Credit, the energy credits, and other such personal and business credits should be distributed via direct discount payments to the appropriate vendors or direct rebate programs, similar to the successful Cash for Clunkers program of a few years ago, funded by the budget of the appropriate Cabinet departments.

Distributing the benefits in this manner is much better than the current method for many reasons:

(1) It would be easier for the government to verify that the recipient of the subsidy, discount or rebate actually qualified for the money, greatly reducing fraud. And tax preparers, and the IRS, would no longer need to take on the added responsibility of having to verify that a person qualifies for government benefits.

(2) The qualifying individuals would get the money at the “point of purchase,” when it is really needed, and not have to go “out of pocket” up front and wait to be reimbursed when they file their tax return.

(3) We would be able to calculate the true income tax burden of individuals. Many of the infamous “47%” would still be receiving government benefits, but it would not be done through the income tax system, so they would actually be paying federal income tax.

(4) We could measure the true cost of education, housing, health, energy and welfare programs in the federal budget because benefit payments would be properly allocated to the appropriate departments.

So – do you agree?

TTFN

THE 2021 CHILD TAX CREDIT

For tax year 2021, families claiming the Child Tax Credit will receive up to $3,000 for each qualifying child who is between the ages of 6 and 17 at the end of 2021. They will receive $3,600 per qualifying child under the age 6 at the end of 2021.     

The increase – the additional $1,000 or $1,600 - is reduced (phased out), for incomes over $150,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return, $112,500 for heads of household, and $75,000 for all other taxpayers.  The remaining $2,000 is phased out based on the pre-2021 rules.  For 2021 the credit is fully refundable. 

Advance payments of up to 50% of the 2021 Child Tax Credit will begin to be made regularly from July through December to eligible taxpayers who have a main home in the United States for more than half the year.  You can elect not to receive these advance payments.   

Like the advance premium tax credit, any advance payment of the Child Tax Credit will be reconciled on the 2021 Form 1040.  Please be aware that if you do receive advance Child Tax Credit payments in 2021 this will reduce the potential federal refund on your 2020 Form 1040.

The IRS website has established the following tools to assist families in dealing with the changes to the credit. 

Child Tax Credit Eligibility Assistant: allows families to answer a series of questions to quickly determine whether they qualify for the advance credit

Child Tax Credit Update Portal: allows families to verify their eligibility for the payments and, if they choose to, unenroll or opt out from receiving the monthly payments

Child Tax Credit Non-filer Sign-up Tool: allows eligible individuals who don’t normally file an income tax return to register for payments

It is my understanding that the IRS will provide those who receive advance payments with a statement in January.  Be sure to save this statement and give it to your tax preparer.       

TTFN

THE SECOND ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

 

“The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021” was finally signed into law by Trump on Sunday night, December 27.  In addition to the $600 per taxpayer and dependent child Economic Impact Payment (discussed here), the Act includes the following items that affect Form 1040 (and 1040-SR) filers -

FOR 2020 RETURNS

Taxpayers can use their 2019 income to determine eligibility for and calculate the 2020 Earned Income Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit if it results in a bigger credit than actual 2020 income.

FOR 2021 AND BEYOND RETURNS

* Business-related “food or beverages provided by a restaurant” are 100% deductible for 2021 and 2022 (remember - employee business expenses, including employee-paid business meals, are no longer deductible on Schedule A).   

* The "above-the-line" deduction of up to $300 per taxpayer for qualifying charitable contributions for taxpayers who do not itemize on Schedule A, a per return deduction for 2020, is per taxpayer for 2021.  The maximum deduction for a married couple filing a joint 2021 return is $600.

* The 7½% of AGI exclusion for medical expenses on Schedule A is made permanent

* The MAGI-based phase-out amounts for the Lifetime Learning Credit are permanently increased to equal the amounts for the American Opportunity Credit.

* The lifetime $500 credit for 10% of qualified residential energy purchases is extended for 2021.

The Act also included new and extended business and payroll tax relief and other non-1040 items.

TTFN

FYI

 

Here is a reminder of some things you need to be aware of when planning for and preparing your 2020 income tax returns.

* The IRS was closed for 3 months beginning at the end of March.  During this time mail was not opened and returns were not processed.  As a result, the issuance of requested refunds was seriously delayed.  Due to the excessive delay the refund checks finally received by taxpayers included a payment of interest calculated from April 15, 2020 till the date of issuance. 

This interest is taxable income for 2020.  You will receive a 2020 Form 1099-INT from the Department of the Treasury (IRS) in January of 2021, and this income must be reported on your 2020 Form 1040 (or 1040-SR) and state income tax return.

* Unemployment benefits received in 2020 due to the pandemic are fully taxable on your 2020 federal income tax return, and may also be taxable on your 2020 state income tax return (not on the New Jersey state return). 

As most individuals collecting unemployment in 2020 needed every penny of the benefit. I expect they did not request federal income tax withholding on their benefits, and may end up owing federal income tax on their 2020 Form 1040 or 1040-SR.

Many states, New Jersey included, no longer mail out a paper Form 1099-G to report unemployment benefits paid and federal income tax withheld.  If you received unemployment in 2020 you may need to go to your state’s unemployment benefit website – the site you used to apply for unemployment – and download a copy of your 2020 Form 1099-G to give to your tax professional.

* The Economic Impact Payment – a maximum of $1,200 ($2,400 if married filing jointly) plus $500 for each qualifying child you had in 2020 – is not taxable income.  You do not have to report the amount you received as income on your 2020 income tax return. 

But, like the Advance Premium Credit, this payment must be reconciled on your 2020 Form 1040 or 1040-SR.  If you got more than you should have you do not have to pay back the excess.  But if you did not get a payment or you got less than you should have you can claim a refundable Recovery Rebate Credit on your 2020 federal income tax return.  So, you will need the amount you received when preparing your 2020 return

Any questions?

TTFN

RECORDKEEPING FOR COLLEGE

If you have a child beginning college this fall be sure to have him or her save and give to you the receipts for all textbook purchases.  If purchased online have them print hard copies of the receipts.  The American Opportunity Credit, available for the first 4 calendar years of undergraduate education, allows you to include the cost of books with tuition and fees in calculating the credit.

You should also save, again in hard copy, the bills, receipts and “Bursar’s Statements” that itemize the individual charges for tuition, fees, room and board, and other items and amounts and sources of payments.  You should receive a Form 1098-T from the school in January of 2020, but these forms do not always provide all the information you may need.

If you are paying separately for off-campus lodging for your student while away from home at college keep track of these payments also. 

In addition to claiming an American Opportunity Credit, or a Lifetime Learning Credit, if you have used withdrawals from a Section 529 Qualified Tuition Program to pay for all or some of the college expenses the detailed information of expenses and payments will be needed.

If your level of income turns out to be too high to claim a full American Opportunity Credit your student child may be able to claim a credit on his or her tax return if they have sufficient income to have to pay tax.

TTFN

NO, NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO!

On June 20, the House Ways and Means Committee approved 3 tax-related bills -

* The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act (H.R. 3301) would extend through 2020 some 40 tax provisions that expired or are about to expire and provides disaster tax relief portion, funded by ending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's estate tax exemption in 2022 instead of in 2025.

* The Economic Mobility Act of 2019 (H.R. 3300) would expand the earned income tax credit and make the child tax credit fully refundable.

* The Promoting Respect for Individuals' Dignity and Equality (PRIDE) Act of 2019 (H.R. 3299), would permit same-sex married couples to amend their filing status for income tax returns with respect to which the statute of limitations has already passed.

All three bills received votes primarily along partisan lines. There is no indication if and when the legislation would reach the House floor for a vote.

I certainly support the Senate Republicans promise that the extenders package is "dead on arrival".  I oppose the extension of these tax benefits – and most certainly if the extension is retroactive to 2018 (not sure if they are in this bill).  Having temporary tax benefits that are constantly extended is truly stupid.  And creating tax deductions and credits that are retroactive to a prior tax year whose returns have already been filed creates problems and agita for taxpayers, tax preparers and the IRS, as well as for state tax agencies. 

I also strongly oppose expanding the Earned Income Credit and making the Child Tax Credit fully refundable.  The EIC does not belong in the Tax Code, and I oppose ALL refundable credits.  The Tax Code should not be used to distribute federal welfare benefits, and refundable credits in general are a magnet for tax fraud.    

I have no problem with promoting respect for individuals' dignity and equality.

Senate Republicans have announced their opposition to all of the bills.

So, what do you think?

TTFN 

TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

Everyone admits that there needs to be “technical corrections” made to the hastily written GOP Tax Act.  In addition to those being discussed, here are some changes I believe should be enacted -

+ If Congress believes the deduction for state and local taxes should be limited to $10,000, the maximum amount allowed for a married couple filing a joint return, currently also $10,000, should be increased to $20,000.  Two single individuals living together can claim $10,000 each for a total of $20,000.  Why should a married couple be penalized by limiting the deduction to $10,000 on a joint return?

+ The Child Tax Credit of $2,000 per child, increased from the previous $1,000 to make up for the loss of the personal exemption, is only allowed for dependent children under age 17.  A dependent child who turns age 17 during the year gets the lower $500 “Other Dependent Credit”.  It is my assumption that the Child Tax Credit was intended to cover dependent children through high school.  The age threshold for the higher Child Tax Credit should be changed from under age 17 to under age 18 or even under age 19. 

+ The American Opportunity Credit was intended to provide tax relief for the 4 years of college leading to an undergraduate degree.  Currently the credit is only available for 4 tax years.  But since a college year begins in the fall of one year and ends in the spring of another year a 4-year degree program actually takes place within 5 calendar years.  Qualified calendar-year taxpayers, which almost everyone is, should be allowed to claim the American Opportunity Credit for 5 tax years.

As an aside - I do not believe the American Opportunity Credit, or any credit or deduction that is in reality a distribution of social welfare or other government benefits, belongs in the US Tax Code.  But as long as it is there it should be done properly to accomplish its intended purpose.  And I oppose the $10,000 SALT limitation, but if it is there it should be applied fairly.

So, what do you think?

TTFN

TAX PROS SHOULDN’T BE FORCED TO BECOME SOCIAL WORKERS

In the beginning the Internal Revenue Service and Congress required paid tax preparers to perform excessive additional “due diligence” for client returns that claimed a refundable tax credit – the Earned Income Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Credit - in an attempt to reduce the substantial tax fraud resulting from refundable credits.

Tax pros were required to interview the client, asking “adequate” questions and contemporaneously documenting the questions and the client’s responses, and review “adequate” information and related documentation to determine if the taxpayer was eligible to claim the credit.

Documents the preparer is supposed to review include -

·         School records or statement.

·         Landlord or a property management statement.

·         Health care provider statement.

·         Medical records.

·         Child care provider records.

·         Placement agency statement.

·         Social service records or statement.

·         Place of worship statement.

·         Medical records.

As a paid tax preparer, I clearly oppose the imposition of these requirements.  It is totally inappropriate.   Tax professionals should not be required to in effect become Social Workers and investigate whether a taxpayer qualified for a government social welfare benefit, or looking at it another way, forced to do the work of the IRS and “pre-audit” returns instead of enacting the obvious solution to the problem – eliminating refundable tax credits. 

The purpose of the federal income tax system is to raise the money necessary to run the government, and not to distribute social welfare and other government benefits or to redistribute income.

But now, beginning with 2018 tax returns, paid preparers must perform excessive additional due diligence, and complete Form 8867 (Paid Preparer's Due Diligence Checklist), for all client returns claiming the Earned Income Credit, the Child Tax Credit, the new Other Dependent Credit, the American Opportunity Credit, and Head of Household filing status – which is basically every single taxpayer who claims a dependent and some who do not.

This has gone too far.  As I have said in the past, eventually tax preparers will be required to make random surprise bed checks of client homes during the year.   

Unfortunately, tax pros must just “grin and bear it” because, unlike most other professions and industries, the tax preparation industry does not have a lobby in Washington.     

Why don’t taxpayers who self-prepare have to complete and separately sign a tax form checklist declaring they certify they are aware of and meet the requirements of these credits and the Head of Household status?

If tax professionals are required to perform and attest to additional due diligence for anything it should be the newly limited itemized deduction for mortgage interest. 

TTFN

A BETTER WAY

Perhaps the greatest source of tax fraud, and tax return error, is the result of the erroneous policy of distributing government welfare and other social program benefits via the Form 1040 (or 1040A), especially when this takes the form of a refundable tax credit – the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Credit.

 

Obviously the best solution to the problem of tax fraud and error in this situation is to remove the distribution of government benefits, and all refundable credits, from the Tax Code. 

 

But if Congress insists on continuing this erroneous practice I have an alternative to forcing paid tax preparers to act as Social Workers and verify that clients qualify for these government program benefit payments via excessive additional “due diligence”, and forcing many legitimate low-income claimants to pay a tax return preparer to apply for government benefits.

 

First, require that all taxpayers who claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, whether or not refundable, have their tax returns prepared at an IRS VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) site, where returns are prepared free of charge for lower-income taxpayers.  Tax preparers would not be permitted to prepare, nor taxpayers to “self-prepare”, tax returns claiming the EITC. 

 

The number of VITA centers would need to be expanded and staffing would include paid IRS employees who, along with volunteer preparers, are specifically trained in verifying EITC qualifications.  Taxpayers would be required to provide VITA preparers with all the appropriate documentation that tax preparers are currently told to ask for.

 

Currently VITA preparers are not required to do the same excessive due diligence as paid tax preparers – which is wrong. 

 

Second, educational institutions must be required to report on the Form 1098-T all cash payments made to the institution during the calendar year for qualifying tuition and fees from all sources (payments from the student or the student’s family, direct student loan or employee benefit payments, and scholarships and grants), net any tuition and fee refunds, without exception (which Congress has already required institutions to do), the Form 1098-T must include a second page that lists the specific details of the charges and payments (as many colleges actually already provide to students), and the Form 1098-T must also be required to be attached to the tax return.

 

Just a thought. 

 

What do you think?

 

TTFN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CREDIT STILL AVAILABLE FOR 2016

 

While the PATH Act (The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015) made many of the popular “tax extenders” permanent, the following items were extended through December 31, 2016 only.  They will no longer be available on 2017 and beyond returns.  So 2016 is the last chance you have to claim a deduction -

1. Exclusion of up to $2 Million of Cancellation of Debt (COD) Income from Foreclosure of Principal Personal Residence. 

2. Deduction for Tuition and Fees – the above-the-line deduction of $4,000 or $2,000 of qualified tuition and fees for both undergraduate and graduate education.

3. Itemized Deduction for Mortgage Insurance Premiums 

4. Lifetime Maximum $500 Residential Energy Credit of 10% on Qualified Energy Efficient Purchases and Improvements.

For the Residential Energy Credit you have until December 31^st to make a purchase that qualifies for the benefit.

This energy credit has a $500 lifetime maximum.  If you claimed over $500 in energy tax credits from 2006 - 2015 you are not eligible for a credit for 2016, so an additional energy efficient purchase will not provide any federal tax benefit.

The credit is available for -

* Biomass Stoves

* Heating Ventilating, Air Conditioning (Advanced Main Air Circulating Fan, Air Source Heat Pumps, Central Air Conditioning, Gas, Propane, or Oil Hot Water Boiler, and Natural Gas, Propane or Oil Furnace)

* Insulation

* Roofs (Metal and Asphalt)

* Water Heaters (Gas, Propane or Oil Water Heater, and Electric Heat Pump Water Heater)

* Windows, Doors, and Skylights

There are specific dollar limitations and “proficiency” requirements for each of the above items.  For example the lifetime deduction for qualified windows, doors, and skylights is $200.  And you cannot just purchase new windows for your home - the windows must be “ENERGY STAR certified”.   Gas, propane, or oil water heaters must have be “recognized as ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2016” and have an AFUE >= 95.

You can go online to a special section of the Energy Star website to find out what the specific qualifications are for individual items.

Make sure your purchase qualifies for the credit – do not expect your tax preparer to waste his or her valuable time during the filing season investigating your purchase.  When giving the purchase information to your tax pro also include any Manufacturer’s Certification statement or other documentation, or your affirmation that you have checked carefully and found that the purchase definitely qualifies for the credit.  

TTFN

 

 

 

 

THIS JUST CAME TO ME

Here is something that came to me as I was preparing a GDE. 

The taxpayer, a NJ resident, purchased insurance for her and her dependent college student child for 2014 via the Obamacare Marketplace and received an advance premium credit that was applied to her monthly premium payment.

Health insurance premiums are deductible on the federal return if you itemize and the total of all allowable medical expenses exceeds 10% (or 7 ½%) of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), and also on the NJ-1040 state income tax return if the total of all allowable medical expenses exceeds 2% of your NJ Gross Income.

If a person receives an advance premium credit the amount that is deductible on the federal and state returns is the net “out of pocket” payment after deducting the advance premium credit – the amount the person has actually paid each month for the insurance coverage.  

If a taxpayer received an advance premium credit he/she must reconcile the amount of credit applied to the premium charges during the year, based on projected 2014 household income, to the actual credit to which he/she is entitled based on actual 2014 household income when filing his/her 2014 federal income tax return.  If the taxpayer is entitled to an additional credit it increases the refund or reduces the balance due on the tax return.  If the advance credit received during the year is more than the actual credit allowed the taxpayer must pay back the excess credit by reducing his/her refund or increasing his/her balance due.   

An additional credit that is paid to the taxpayer via the tax return reduces the “out of pocket” cost of the health insurance premiums for 2014 and, if the taxpayer itemized in 2014, represents a refund of a previously deducted item – and may be taxable income for 2015 under the tax benefit rule for recovery of a previously deducted item. 

If the taxpayer has to pay back all or part of the advance premium credit applied during 2014 then the pay back is an additional “out of pocket” cost for health insurance premiums, and is a deductible medical expense for 2015.  

My client had to pay back over $1,500 of advance premium credits applied in 2014 on her 2014 Form 1040 by reducing the requested refund on the return.  In effect she paid an additional $1,500+ for health insurance premiums.  If she will be able to itemize she can add this $1,500+ to the medical expenses she reports on Schedule A, subject to the in this case 10% of AGI exclusion. And she can most definitely add the $1,500+ to the medical expenses claimed on her 2015 NJ-1040.

So if you had to pay back all or part of the Obamacare advance premium credit on your 2014 tax return all is not lost – you may be able to deduct the pay-back on your 2015 federal and/or state income tax return.

I do not recall anyone discussing or writing about this anywhere when talking, teaching, or writing about the Obamacare premium credit.

Comments?

TTFN