ILNews

24 more school corps join IRS lawsuit on employer mandate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Twenty-four additional school corporations have joined the lawsuit filed in October by the state of Indiana and 15 school corporations against the Internal Revenue Service challenging the tax penalties that could be imposed in 2015 under the “employer mandate” of the Affordable Care Act.

The lawsuit challenges new IRS regulations implemented under the new health care law and the authority of the federal government to impose the employer mandate on the state and Indiana public school corporations. The mandate declares that applicable large employers are required to offer full-time employees health insurance.

If large employers do not meet that requirement and workers then receive federal subsidies to get health insurance coverage, the employers may be subject to large financial penalties – up to $2,000 per employee for all full-time employees in the organization.

“It is unprecedented in the history of the United States that 39 public schools have joined together in a single lawsuit against the IRS. The significant participation of Indiana public schools in this lawsuit underscores the debilitating impact that the employer penalties are having upon public education,” said Jim Hamilton, an attorney at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP representing the public schools.  “All Indiana public school corporations provide comprehensive health insurance coverage to most of their employees. However, the practical reality is that most Indiana public school corporations do not have the financial resources to provide affordable, minimum value coverage to all employees who work in excess of 30 hours of service per week.”

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, who represents the state in the lawsuit, called the IRS tax penalties “draconian.”

“The objective of this case is to defend fundamental state authority to structure our government workforce to provide services; and individuals’ access to health insurance never has been the focus of the suit,” Zoeller said. "Our State should be protected as is constitutionally guaranteed from federal government overreach under our American system of federalism, and the participation of so many school corporations in the challenge reflects mutual concern that this principle has been undermined by the IRS’s actions.”

The amended lawsuit seeks an injunction blocking the IRS and other federal agencies from applying the regulation and penalties against the school corporations and the state as government employees. The plaintiffs also want the federal court to issue a declaratory judgment finding the IRS regulations as applied to the state government and schools unconstitutional and void under the 10th Amendment.

The school corporations in the lawsuit come from throughout the state and include the Charles A. Beard Memorial School Corp. in Knightstown; Salem Community Schools in Salem; and Mooresville Consolidated School Corp. in Mooresville.

The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. No response has been filed yet by the federal defendants, which include Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the U.S. Department of Labor.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT