Jason J. Gartlan v. Commissioner ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                           
    T.C. Summary Opinion 2018-42
    UNITED STATES TAX COURT
    JASON J. GARTLAN, Petitioner v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
    Docket No. 11646-17S.                        Filed September 11, 2018.
    Harry J. Gartlan, Jr., for petitioner.
    Brian E. Salisbury and Harry J. Negro, for respondent.
    SUMMARY OPINION
    GUY, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions
    of section 7463 in effect when the petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b),
    1
    Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal
    Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for the taxable year 2015, and all Rule
    references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
    -2-
    the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
    shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.
    Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,156 in petitioner’s Federal
    income tax for the taxable year 2015 (year in issue). Petitioner filed a timely
    petition for redetermination with the Court pursuant to section 6213(a). At the
    time the petition was filed, he resided in Delaware.
    The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a premium tax
    credit (PTC) under section 36B for the year in issue.
    Background2
    In 2015 petitioner was enrolled in a health insurance plan offered through
    an insurance exchange created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
    Act (ACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 
    124 Stat. 119
     (2010). He paid monthly health
    insurance premiums of $383.45 (or a total of $4,601.40 for the year).
    In January 2016 the Department of Health and Human Services issued to
    petitioner a Form 1095-A, Health Insurance Marketplace Statement, reporting that
    in 2015 no advance premium assistance payments had been made on his behalf.
    On October 16, 2016, petitioner timely filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual
    Income Tax Return, for 2015, reporting business income of $1,163, deductions of
    2
    Some of the facts have been stipulated.
    -3-
    $82 and $1,880 for self-employment tax and student loan interest, respectively,
    and adjusted gross income (AGI) of !$799. Petitioner attached to his tax return a
    Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit, and claimed a PTC of $3,156. Petitioner
    reported a household size of one person and modified AGI (MAGI) of !$799.
    Respondent determined that petitioner is ineligible for the PTC because he
    is not an “applicable taxpayer” within the meaning of section 36B(c)(1).
    Petitioner asserts that he (1) is entitled to the PTC under a special rule for
    taxpayers with household income below 100% of the Federal poverty line and
    (2) should be treated as an applicable taxpayer consistent with the policy
    objectives underlying section 36B.
    Discussion
    In general, the Commissioner’s determination of a taxpayer’s liability in a
    notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
    proving that the determination is incorrect. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 
    290 U.S. 111
    , 115 (1933).3 Deductions and credits are a matter of legislative grace and
    are allowed only as there is a clear provision therefor. INDOPCO, Inc. v.
    3
    The facts relevant to the disposition of this case are not in dispute.
    Therefore, the assignment of the burden of proof is immaterial.
    -4-
    Commissioner, 
    503 U.S. 79
    , 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 
    292 U.S. 435
    , 440 (1934).
    In 2010 Congress enacted the ACA, including new section 36B, see ACA
    sec. 1401(a), 124 Stat. at 213, which established a refundable tax credit--the PTC--
    available to an applicable taxpayer to provide assistance in paying health
    insurance premiums.4 Sec. 36B(a) and (b).
    Section 36B(c)(1)(A) generally defines the term “applicable taxpayer” as a
    taxpayer whose household income for a taxable year equals or exceeds 100%, but
    does not exceed 400%, of the Federal poverty line (FPL) for the taxpayer’s
    household size. Sec. 1.36B-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. The FPL is established by
    the most recently published Federal poverty guidelines5 as of the first day of the
    the open enrollment period for health insurance coverage in effect for a calendar
    year.6 Sec. 36B(d)(3)(B); sec. 1.36B-1(h), Income Tax Regs.
    4
    The PTC is available for tax years ending after December 31, 2013. See
    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, sec.
    1401(e), 124 Stat. at 220 (2010).
    5
    The Federal poverty guidelines, published by the Department of Health and
    Human Services, are revised at least annually. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
    Act of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-35, sec. 673, 95 Stat. at 511-512 (codified as amended
    at 42 U.S.C. sec. 9902(2), (4) (2012)).
    6
    For health insurance coverage beginning on January 1, 2015, the annual
    (continued...)
    -5-
    Section 36B(d)(2)(A) defines the term “household income” as the MAGI of
    the taxpayer plus the MAGI of family members for whom the taxpayer properly
    claims deductions for personal exemptions and who were required to file a Federal
    income tax return under section 1. Sec. 1.36B-1(d), (e)(1), Income Tax Regs.
    Section 36B(d)(2)(B) defines MAGI as AGI increased by certain items of income
    which are normally excluded from gross income. See sec. 1.36B-1(e)(2), Income
    Tax Regs.
    Section 1.36B-2(b)(6)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides an exception to the
    general definition of an applicable taxpayer as follows:
    (6) Special rule for taxpayers with household income below
    100 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxable year.--(i) In
    general.--A taxpayer (other than a taxpayer described in paragraph
    (b)(5) of this section) whose household income for a taxable year is
    less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer’s
    family size is treated as an applicable taxpayer for the taxable year if--
    (A) The taxpayer or a family member enrolls in a qualified
    health plan through an Exchange for one or more months during the
    taxable year;
    6
    (...continued)
    open enrollment period began on November 15, 2014. 45 C.F.R. sec.
    155.410(e)(1) (2018). Accordingly, for purposes of this case, we look to the
    Federal poverty guidelines in effect during 2014. The guidelines indicate that the
    applicable FPL for a household of one person, for the 48 contiguous States and the
    District of Columbia, was $11,670. 
    79 Fed. Reg. 3593
     (Jan. 22, 2014).
    -6-
    (B) An Exchange estimates at the time of enrollment that the
    taxpayer’s household income will be at least 100 percent but not more
    than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxable year;
    (C) Advance credit payments are authorized and paid for one or
    more months during the taxable year;[7] and
    (D) The taxpayer would be an applicable taxpayer if the
    taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year was at least 100 but
    not more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the
    taxpayer’s family size.
    I. Applicable Taxpayer
    The parties agree that petitioner’s household size was limited to one person
    (himself) and that his MAGI for the taxable year 2015 was !$799. Because his
    MAGI was below $11,670 (i.e., 100% of the FPL for the year in issue), he does
    not qualify as an applicable taxpayer within the meaning of section 36B(c)(1)(A).
    II. Section 1.36B-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.
    Petitioner nevertheless contends that he qualifies for the PTC under the
    special rule prescribed in section 1.36B-2(b)(6)(i), Income Tax Regs. We
    disagree.
    7
    ACA sec. 1412, 124 Stat. at 231, permits the Secretary to authorize
    advance payments of the PTC directly to a taxpayer’s insurance carrier. Advance
    payments require an estimate of the amount of the PTC which the taxpayer may be
    entitled to claim on his tax return. See id.; Internal Revenue Manual pt.
    21.6.3.4.2.16(6) (Oct. 1, 2014).
    -7-
    Section 1.36B-2(b)(6)(i)(B), Income Tax Regs., requires that, at the time
    that petitioner enrolled in a health insurance plan, the insurance exchange
    estimated that his household income would be at least 100%, but not more than
    400%, of the FPL for the taxable year. In addition, section 1.36B-2(b)(6)(i)(C),
    Income Tax Regs., requires that advance premium assistance payments were
    authorized and paid on petitioner’s behalf during the year in issue. There is no
    dispute that neither of these requirements was met in this case. Consequently,
    petitioner does not qualify under the special rule for taxpayers with household
    income below 100% of the FPL.
    III. Policy Argument
    As a final matter, petitioner maintains that he should be treated as an
    applicable taxpayer who is eligible for the PTC because he falls within the class of
    persons that the statute was intended to assist, even if, because of circumstances
    out of his control, he does not satisfy the special rule prescribed in section 1.36B-
    2(b)(6)(i), Income Tax Regs. In support of his position, petitioner cites King v.
    Burwell, 576 U.S. ____, 
    135 S. Ct. 2480
     (2015), and states that the policy behind
    the PTC was to provide advance premium assistance payments to taxpayers, like
    him, who cannot afford to pay some or all of the cost of health insurance. He
    avers that advance premium assistance payments should have been made on his
    -8-
    behalf, but no such payments were actually made because there was no
    relationship between the State of Delaware, the exchange, and his insurance
    carrier that could facilitate the contribution and receipt of advance payments.
    While we are not unsympathetic to petitioner’s situation, we are bound by
    the statute as written and the accompanying regulations when consistent therewith.
    See Michaels v. Commissioner, 
    87 T.C. 1412
    , 1417 (1986); Brissett v.
    Commissioner, 
    T.C. Memo. 2003-310
    , 
    2003 WL 22520105
    , at *3. The controlling
    facts are that petitioner’s MAGI was below eligible levels and he does not qualify
    for the exception set forth in section 1.36B-2(b)(6)(i), Income Tax Regs. To the
    extent that petitioner believes that he has suffered an injustice due to a flaw in the
    controlling statutory provisions, his recourse may be to seek a legislative remedy.
    Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination.
    To reflect the foregoing,
    Decision will be entered
    for respondent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11646-17S

Filed Date: 9/11/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/14/2018