Health Reform WK-EDGE ISRP is a penalty, not tax, for bankruptcy purposes
Friday, April 13, 2018

ISRP is a penalty, not tax, for bankruptcy purposes

By David Yucht, J.D.

An individual shared responsibility payment (ISRP) mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a penalty for bankruptcy purposes, not a tax. As a result, an ISRP debt is not given priority status, but is a regular debt under the Bankruptcy Code (In re: Parrish, April 6, 2018, Humrickhouse, S.).

Bankrupt debtor owed ISRP. A debtor filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in 2017. Her 2016 federal tax return, indicated that she owed a $664 ISRP from her failure to obtain health insurance as required by the ACA. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed her in the amount of $664, and filed a bankruptcy proof of claim in that amount. The IRS indicated that this debt should be paid off prior to other debts because of its priority status as a debt for nonpayment of an excise tax. The debtor filed an objection to the IRS claim contending that the ISRP is not an excise tax, but is instead a penalty that is not entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code.

ISRP is a penalty for bankruptcy purposes. The bankruptcy court found that the most natural reading for bankruptcy purposes is that the ISRP is a penalty and therefore not a priority debt under the Bankruptcy Code. The judge noted that in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the ISRP is a penalty for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but could reasonably be characterized as a tax for purposes of constitutionality (see Court upholds ACA, but modifies Medicaid expansion, July 2, 2012). The bankruptcy court adopted a rule of law that considers the purpose of a tax to be the support of government; a penalty, however, serves as an exaction for a discouraged act or omission. The bankruptcy court found that the primary purpose of the ISRP is to encourage people to buy insurance by penalizing those who do not. Its revenue-generating component is incidental, despite the Supreme Court’s constitutional characterization. The court also determined that the relatively mild consequences for failure to pay the ISRP distinguish it from a tax.

The case is No. 17-02341-5-SWH.

Attorneys: William F. Braziel, III (Janvier Law Firm, PLLC) for Angela Boykin Parrish.

Cases: CaseDecisions AgencyNews IndividualMandateNews PenaltyNews NorthCarolinaNews

Back to Top

Interested in submitting an article?

Submit your information to us today!

Learn More
Health Reform WK-EDGE

Health Reform WK-EDGE: Breaking legal news at your fingertips

Sign up today for your free trial to this daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys. Stay up to date on health reform legal matters with same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity with easy access through email or mobile app.

Free Trial Learn More