000			02052nab a22002657c 4500
999			_c146503 _d146503
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20221003191235.0
007			ta
008			221003t2022 us ||||| |||| 00| ||eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_aJensen, Erik M. _948792
245	1	0	_aWhat’s a tax for bankruptcy law purposes? _c Erik M Jensen
500			_aResumen.
504			_aIncluye referencias bibliográficas.
520			_aIn 2012, the Supreme Court, in NFIB v. Sebelius, decided that the shared responsibility payment (SRP) required to be made under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by many persons who didn’t acquire minimum essential health insurance was a tax authorized by the Taxing Clause of the Constitution, even though Congress had called the SRP a penalty. In recent years a similar issue has arisen in the bankruptcy context: Is the SRP a tax that may not be eligible for discharge in bankruptcy—it may, that is, be a “priority” under Bankruptcy Code Section 507(a)(8)—or is it a potentially dischargeable penalty? Many cases have considered these questions, coming to dramatically different conclusions. This article focuses on the Third Circuit’s 2022 decision in In re Szczyporski, concluding that the SRP is a tax “measured by income”—and therefore a priority. Although the SRP was reduced to zero by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, so that the SRP’s characterization for bankruptcy purposes won’t be a future issue, what courts have said about the statutory distinction between taxes and penalties can continue to matter for the characterization of other governmental charges.
650		4	_aRESPONSABILIDAD TRIBUTARIA _948291
650		4	_aSEGUROS DE SALUD _948380
650		4	_aIMPUESTOS _947460
650		4	_aSANCIONES _948343
650		4	_aQUIEBRA _931111
650		4	_aSISTEMA FISCAL _948426
650		4	_aESTADOS UNIDOS _942888
773	0		_9168005 _oOP 235/2022/4 _tJournal of Taxation of Investments _w(IEF)51921 _x 0747-9115 _gv. 39, n. 4, Summer 2022, p. 49-64
942			_cART