The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Financial Planning / Tax Strategies
|Subject: Re: ACA Calc: Tax Strategy||Date: 11/2/2013 4:47 PM|
|Author: TMFPMarti||Number: 119443 of 125697|
"Your subsidy will ultimately be based on 2014 numbers, you might have to put more cash up front because of your 2012 or 2013 income but you get it back when you file in 2015."
As near as I can tell the 2014 premium credit is definitely based on 2014 MAGI. The big problem is that the only way I've seen a route to getting more information is healthcare.gov, and I don't want to join the media idiots who keep tying up available portals at that site monkeying around to see how hard it is to access </rant>.
The Members will be furious if they find out, but if you paid close enough attention during the Congressional hearings you could extract from the bloviating some actual information. From what I've been able to piece together, in the process of signing up you give it income information. The big question is "for what year?" Elsewhere I've seen that you can get advance payment of the credit in the form of direct payment of your premium. If you choose to do that it's important to go back and update your information as the year progresses so your credit on your 2014 return comes close to the amount you've gotten in advance. This reconciliation sounds similar to what was done in the day of the advance earned income credit. So it could be that when you're in the process of signing up it will ask you about your estimated 2014 income. After all, at this point you don't even have 2013 AGI nailed down.
So, as for your original question about income timing, it might make sense to store up some nuts for the winter. BUT, you also need to be wary of 2013 tax as you do so. Remember that the surtax on investment income is in effect for 2013.
As for the litigation, you'll get a more neutral discussion if you go to the WSJ link in the Moneywatch column. This is strictly a hunch, but I've never seen the courts terribly impressed with "I pay taxes" as a method of gaining standing to sue. SCOTUS has deemed the individual mandate constitutional, and I doubt the lower courts are going to give a lot of weight to people who aren't harmed by the premium credit who want to keep people who are helped by it from getting it. In the discussed case I found the fact that the court wouldn't grant an injunction more telling than the fact that it wouldn't dismiss the case summarily.
Rule Your Retirement Home Fool
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|