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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT