Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (645692)	2/17/2012 10:44:55 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1573994

Time and time again, for nearly 100 years, the Supreme Court has, at least in tax cases, consistently looked at substance over form. So, you can call it a "loan" all you want but if it looks more like a dividend, it is a dividend (Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 1935). I don't think they're going to, overnight, abandon that approach to accommodate the administration. If they do, it will be radical. The substance of the proposed legislation is imposition of a fine. You can call it a tax, you can impose it like a tax, but it is not a tax. If it is a tax, it is a tax on WHAT? A tax on failing to buy insurance? There are taxes on income, on sales, on property, ownership, possession, just about everything has been taxed at some point throughout history. But in the annals of the history of taxation, I don't believe there has ever been a tax on not buying something. Either the administration has made history by creating an entirely new, heretofore inconceivable, tax on not buying something, OR the Supreme Court is going to pitch these fools out on their ears.