New Obamacare Tax Form Mandates Americans Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS
When Obamacare’s individual mandate takes effect in 2014, all Americans who file income tax returns must complete an additional IRS tax form. The new form will require disclosure of a taxpayer’s personal identifying health information in order to determine compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
As confirmed by IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.
So why will the Obama IRS require your personal identifying health information?
Simply put, there is no way for the IRS to enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate without such an invasive reporting scheme. Every January, health insurance companies across America will send out tax documents to each insured individual. This tax document—a copy of which will be furnished to the IRS—must contain sufficient information for taxpayers to prove that they purchased qualifying health insurance under Obamacare.
This new tax information document must, at a minimum, contain: the name and health insurance identification number of the taxpayer; the name and tax identification number of the health insurance company; the number of months the taxpayer was covered by this insurance plan; and whether or not the plan was purchased in one of Obamacare’s “exchanges.”
This will involve millions of new tax documents landing in mailboxes across America every January, along with the usual raft of W-2s, 1099s, and 1098s. At tax time, the 140 million families who file a tax return will have to get acquainted with a brand new tax filing form. Six million of these families will end up paying Obamacare’s individual mandate non-compliance tax penalty.
As a service to the public, Americans for Tax Reform has released a projected version of this tax form to help families and tax specialists prepare for this additional filing requirement. Taxpayers may view the projected IRS form at www.ObamacareTaxForm.com or see below. On the form, lines 3-4 show where taxpayers will disclose their personal identifying health information.
Follow the authors on Twitter: @Ryanlellis and @JohnKartch
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Joe Biden Would Raise the U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Higher Than Communist China

According to Nancy Cook of Bloomberg, President Joe Biden is planning to increase the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent in order to pay for trillions of dollars in new spending.
This increase would impose on Americans a higher corporate tax rate than Communist China’s 25%.
Current rate: 21%
China’s rate: 25%
Biden’s rate: 28%
Biden’s 28 percent tax rate (resulting in a combined federal/state corporate tax rate of about 32 percent) is also higher than the United Kingdom (19 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).
In 2017, Republicans lowered the federal corporate tax rate from the Obama-Biden era 35 percent rate down to the current 21 percent rate as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. When Trump took office, America’s corporate rate was the highest in the developed world.
The corporate tax cut was the cornerstone of the previously robust American economy. Before COVID-19, the Trump economy routinely created well over 100,000 private sector jobs per month. Nominal wage growth enjoyed 19 consecutive months of over 3 percent growth, and unemployment was consistently below 4 percent, a 50-year record low.
Because corporate tax hikes encourage companies to do business elsewhere, less money will be invested into the U.S. economy. The result is less jobs, lower wages, and a slower recovery. A study released by EY found that American companies suffered a net loss of almost $510 billion in assets between 2004 and 2017 due to the high U.S. rate. If the corporate rate was lower between 2004 and 2017, the study estimates that U.S. companies would have acquired a net of $1.2 trillion worth of assets, meaning that more than $1.7 trillion in assets were lost because of the uncompetitive U.S. rate.
A Treasury Department study estimated that “a country with a 1 percentage point lower tax rate than its competitors attracts 3 percent more capital.” This is because raising the corporate rate makes the United States a less attractive place to invest profits.
If Joe Biden raises the corporate tax rate, he will discourage businesses from investing in the United States. Capital is mobile, so a tax increase can result in this jobs and investment going overseas.
As a Harvard Business Review piece explains:
“When capital is invested elsewhere, real wages decline, and if product prices are set globally, there is no place for the corporate tax to land but straight on the back of the least-mobile factor in this setting: the American worker. The flow of capital out of the United States only accelerates as opportunities in the rest of the world increase. This is the key to understanding why, despite political rhetoric to the contrary, reforming the corporate tax is central to improving the position of the American worker.”
The coronavirus pandemic has caused incredible harm to American businesses and workers. Still, Joe Biden is championing the idea of increasing the corporate tax rate to fulfill his misguided, poorly thought-out promise to punish “greedy corporations.” Instead, he will punish American workers and the U.S. economy.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Norquist Fox Business Op-ed: Get ready, America, Democrats think tax hikes are the answer to everything

In an op-ed published in Fox Business last week, ATR President Grover Norquist warned how Democrats use every policy issue as an excuse to push for new and higher taxes on American businesses and families.
From raising the minimum wage, to healthcare, to infrastructure spending, and to the “climate crisis," every issue is an excuse to expand the size and scope of government and implement trillions in new taxes.
For instance, key Biden officials, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, support a $2 trillion energy tax to address climate issues. If implemented, as Norquist warns, this carbon tax would increase the cost of electricity and consumer goods and services for Americans across the country.
In addition, Democrats want to address healthcare costs by passing a massive 95 percent excise tax on medicines. This tax would kick in if pharmaceutical manufacturers fail to accept the prices demanded by federal health bureaucrats, as proposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the “Lower Drug Costs Now Act.”
The Congressional Budget Office argues that the tax is so onerous that manufacturers would be forced to accept whatever price the federal government demands or stop selling the drug in the U.S. entirely. This plan would cost American patients $1 trillion a year for the next decade due to lack of access to lifesaving cures. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, it would prevent 100 lifesaving and life-preserving medicines from being created over the next decade.
The Left has seized Gamestop-Robinhood trading controversy as a reason to impose a $1 trillion financial transactions tax on trading stocks and bonds. However, as Norquist notes:
“This tax (as well as corporate tax hikes and capital gains tax hikes) will reduce the life savings of the 80 to 100 million Americans that have a 401(k) and the 46.4 million households that have an individual retirement account. “
Raising taxes will not only harm American businesses and workers, but will also slow economic growth, something Democrats tend to forget to prioritize when proposing new taxes. Norquist points out:
“Thinking of tax hikes all day evidently damages one’s ability to remember things. How quickly the Democrats forgot the Obama years when his high tax rates led to “inversions” -- American companies being bought by foreign companies because they were worth more headquartered in Canada or Ireland. When Republicans lowered the American corporate tax rate from 35% -- the highest in the world -- to 21% the Obama-era exodus of companies ended.”
Democrats want to use taxes to punish those they dislike and use this to finance new spending for their own special interests.
Each of these taxes would cause immense harm to American families and businesses. The cost of energy taxes is most deeply felt by low- and middle-income Americans. The "Lower Drug Costs Now Act" would rob millions of Americans of lifesaving and life-preserving medicines. A financial transactions tax would reduce the life savings of nearly 150 million Americans. These are not solutions. Rather, they are tools to expand the size and scope of the federal government.
To read the full op-ed, click here.
Photo Credit: GotCredit
New Study Confirms Big Spending on Jails Doesn’t Mean Improved Public Safety

A new study conducted by the Pew Charitable Trust found that while jail spending has topped $25 billion – an increase of 13% between 2007 and 2017 – crime rates, jail admission, and jail populations have all decreased.
The study shows how ensuring public safety while reducing jail spending and jail population can occur simultaneously and provide significant cost-saving benefits for states, localities, and taxpayers.
The Pew Charitable Trust published the study in January. The study used data from the “Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State and Local Finances, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), and “Jail Inmates in 2018” from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).”
Here are the key findings from the study:
- “Jail and other local corrections costs had risen sixfold since 1977, with jail costs reaching $25 billion.”
- “Almost 2 in 5 dollars spent on state and local correctional institutions went to jails.”
- “About 1 in 17 county dollars was spent on jails.”
- “A 20% decrease in crime and a 19% drop in jail admissions since 2007 had not led to reduced jail spending.”
- “Jail spending increased 13% between 2007 and 2017.”
- Between 2007 and 2017, “jail admissions dropped 19%, from 13.1 million to 10.6 million, and the average daily jail population declined by 4%, or 27,500 people.”
- “The portion of local budgets spent on jails did not correlate with state crime rates.”
It is also important to note the effect of COVID-19 on jail populations. Due to the risk of increased COVID-19 exposure and transmission, jails from March to May 2020 “reduced jail populations by about 31% nationwide.” This reduction in jail populations is in line with nationwide efforts to reduce local government spending on jails, especially after increased economic pressure on states and localities to cut spending in light of COVID-19.
With the great success states have seen following Texas’ lead on criminal justice reform, it is clear that a conservative approach built on incentives, work, and removing counterproductive government barriers leads to a better, more efficient criminal justice system.
At the local jail level, bad policies like excessive fines and fees, suspending driver’s licenses for offenses unrelated to road safety, and a lack of focus on addiction, contribute to more people going to jail more frequently than should be necessary.
Photo Credit: wolfkann
More from Americans for Tax Reform
DOL Should Not Withdraw the Trump Admin Independent Contractor Rule

The Department of Labor has proposed the withdrawal of a rule promulgated under the Trump Administration that clarified the difference between an independent contractor and a traditional employee under the Fair Standards Labor Act (FSLA).
If the DOL rescinds the rule, it would have a devastating impact on American workers and the economy.
The rule updates several criteria designed to clarify whether or not a worker has independent contractor status. First, the rule contains an “economic reality” test to determine whether an individual works for himself or herself (as an independent contractor) or an employer (as an employee).
Additionally, the rule identifies two “core factors” that help determine an individual’s status as an independent contractor or employee. The first is the nature and degree of control that the individual has over the work itself, such as the ability to set a schedule or work with little or no supervision. The second is the opportunity for profit or loss based on the individual’s investment or initiative.
This criteria brings much needed clarity to independent contractors, the vast majority of whom don’t actually want to be qualified as full-time employees because it would require them to have a boss. Based on a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, fewer than 1 out of 10 independent contractors would prefer a traditional employment relationship. According to a report from the Benenson Strategy Group “85% of drivers surveyed said they would prefer to remain independent contractors and receive benefits rather than being classified as employees.”
ATR has collected a list of testimonials of from freelancers and independent contractors of why they oppose the PRO Act and other radical rule changes that would jeopardize their ability to participate in the American economy.
To protect the livelihoods of the more than 57 million Americans that engage in freelance work, the DOL should not rescind the Trump administration rule on independent contractors.
Photo Credit: Iowapolitics.com
Opportunity for Florida to Curb Ineffective, Inappropriate Driver’s License Suspensions

A pair of Florida lawmakers are aiming to end a counterproductive and inefficient way to collect fines and fees: driver’s license suspension.
In Florida, a person’s driver’s license can be suspended as punishment for unpaid court debt. This practice has drawn criticism from both parties as an irresponsible way to collect fines and a cyclical disaster for low-income offenders that is unrelated to road safety.
State Senator Tom Wright and Rep. Chip LaMarca have introduced HB 557 and Senate Bill 386 which would end the suspension of driver’s licenses if the underlying reason for an unpaid fine or fee in a criminal case.
Read ATR's letter of support for HB 557/SB 386.
License suspension for a criminal traffic offense is a warranted, common sense punishment. To suspend a person’s driver’s license where their debt resulted from something unrelated to driving doesn’t line up, and serves to make that debt much more difficult to pay.
“If you’re taking away someone’s ability to drive and ability to work, how are they going to earn the money that they need to earn in order to pay off the amount that they owe?” asks Ashley Thomas, the Florida state director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center. “These are folks who are reentering society after having served their sentence. They have criminal convictions. They’re already facing an uphill battle finding a job or finding an employer, and there’s a lot of jobs in Florida that require driving, so we’re basically just making it impossible for folks to be able to work.”
Results from California, one of the early states to reform driver’s license suspension, show that courts are now receiving more money because people are better able to pay their fines if they can drive to work. California’s courts reported a 9% increase in collections on newly issued traffic tickets following reform.
Illinois lawmakers passed legislation in January to end the policy of suspending driver’s licenses for unpaid “red-light and speed camera tickets.” There are now 14 states that have started to curb debt-related driver’s license suspensions.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Biden Breaks His Tax Pledge on 50th Day of Presidency

Today on the 50th day of his presidency President Joe Biden broke his pledge not to raise a single penny of taxes on any American earning less than $400,000 per year. Biden broke the pledge when he signed the $1.9 trillion Democratic spending package into law.
The law imposes a $31 billion small business income tax increase which contains no exemption for households making less than $400,000 per year. Small business owners pay small business taxes on their individual income tax return.
The provision extends the $500,000 cap on passthrough businesses deducting excess business losses for one year – from 2025 to 2026. This could impact a restaurant, retailer, or other capital-intensive business that sees significant business losses in any year due to the cost of wages, rent, new equipment, inventory, and interest payments.
A previous analysis of the provision by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that it would raise taxes on at least 45,000 filers making below $200,000 in Calendar Year 2020. While the analysis notes that business losses in 2020 were much higher because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it nevertheless shows that small business owning households would be hit by extending the cap.
The cap was originally created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by Congressional Republicans. It was used to offset the creation of the 20 percent deduction for passthrough businesses, which resulted in a net tax cut for taxpayers. Democrats are proposing to extend the cap, but not the 20 percent deduction.
On over 50 occasions, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris made a pledge to each and every household making less than $400,000 that they would not raise any of their taxes a single penny.
Americans for Tax Reform has compiled the written and video documentation of the Biden-Harris pledge. “I give you my word as a Biden,” Biden said repeatedly.
This is not the first time that Democrats have proposed raising taxes on struggling businesses. Last month, Congressional Democrats called for a retroactive repeal of provisions allowing businesses to deduct net operating losses. This would be a $250 billion tax hike and would hit small and medium sized companies that have seen unprecedented challenges due to the Coronavirus pandemic.
While small businesses have been hit particularly hard with forced shutdowns and new government mandates, businesses of all size have struggled with a decline in revenues and additional expenses from implementing new technologies for remote work and retrofitting existing workspaces.
Democrats used to support expanding the ability of businesses to claim losses during an economic downturn. For instance, President Obama highlighted this tax relief as a “fiscally responsible economic kick-start,” in a 2009 press release:
“The Economic Recovery Act included a provision that allowed small businesses to count their losses this year against the taxes they paid in previous years. "Today, the President extended that benefit for an additional year and expanded it to medium and large businesses as well. Business losses incurred in 2008 or 2009 can now be used to recoup taxes paid in the prior five years. This provision is a fiscally responsible economic kick-start, putting $33 billion of tax cuts in the hands of businesses this year when they need it most, while enabling Treasury to recoup the majority of that funding in the coming years as these businesses regain their strength and resume paying taxes.”
Key Congressional Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Ways and Means Chairman Richie Neal (D-Mass.) also praised this tax relief when it was passed in 2009:
Speaker Pelosi: “The bill also has the net operating loss carryback, which businesses tell us is necessary for them to succeed and to hire new people, and also to mitigate some of the damage that has been done to the economy from past policies.”
Chairman Neal: “Finally, the bill provides net operating loss relief for many businesses that have been simply hanging on in this country over the last year. It is particularly important to retailers. Based on a bill that I filed with Representative Tiberi which became the basis for this provision, this relief for businesses, big and small, will provide quick capital at a time when it is currently impossible to find.”
To keep his word, Biden needed to veto the bill or instruct congressional Democrats to insert bill language exempting households making less than $400,000 in a given year. He did neither.
The Biden and Harris tax pledge documentation can be found below. They made the tax pledge on at least 56 occasions:
Click here for the short version of the video with 13 examples of the pledge.
Click here for the full version of the video with every instance of the pledge.
Joe Biden on CNBC, May 22, 2020: "Nobody making under 400,000 bucks would have their taxes raised. Period. Bingo."
Joe Biden on ABC News, August 23, 2020:
David Muir, ABC News: "So, no new taxes, $400,000 and down?"
Biden: "No new taxes. There would be no need for any."
Joe Biden in Kenosha, Wisconsin on September 3, 2020: "But here’s the deal. I pay for every single thing I’m proposing without raising your taxes one penny. If you make less than 400 grand, you’re not going to get a penny taxed."
Joe Biden during a WFLA Interview on September 15, 2020: “Nobody making less than $400,000 have to pay a penny more in tax under my proposals.”
Joe Biden during a Telemundo Interview on September 15, 2020: "I'm not going to raise taxes on anybody making less than 400,000.”
Joe Biden on Twitter, September 17, 2020: “If you make under $400,000, you will not pay a penny more in taxes when I'm president.The super-wealthy and big corporations will finally pay their fair share — and we'll invest that money in working families. We're going to reward work — not wealth.”
Joe Biden on Twitter, September 17, 2020: "No surprise, Donald Trump is lying about my tax plan. Here’s the truth about how I’ll make corporations pay their fair share while ensuring Americans making under $400,000 don’t pay a penny more."
Joe Biden in Hermantown, Minnesota on September 18, 2020 "And I’ll do it without raising anyone’s taxes if you make less than $400,000 a year."
Joe Biden in Manitowoc, Wisconsin on September 21, 2020: “Under my plan nobody making less than 400,000 bucks -- and I don’t make it and you don’t make it, I don’t think -- in this country will see their taxes go up.”
Joe Biden in Greensburg, Pennsylvania on September 30, 2020: “And we’re going to do it without asking anyone who makes under $400,000 a year to pay one more penny in taxes. Guaranteed. My word on it.”
Joe Biden in Jonestown, Pennsylvania on September 30, 2020: “We’re going to do it all without raising a penny in taxes for anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year.”
Joe Biden in Grand Rapids, Michigan on October 2, 2020: “Anyone making less than $400,000 a year won’t pay a penny more."
Joe Biden in Miami, Florida on October 5, 2020: “I’m not going to raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $400,000 a year. You won’t pay a penny more. I guarantee you.”
Kamala Harris during Vice Presidential Debate on October 7, 2020: “Joe Biden has been very clear. He will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year.”
Joe Biden on Twitter, October 7, 2020: “Let me be clear: A Biden-Harris Administration won't increase taxes by a dime on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.”
Joe Biden in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 9, 2020: “It’s not going to raise a penny in tax for anyone making less than $400,000 a year. Not a penny.”
Kamala Harris on Twitter, October 9, 2020: “Joe Biden has been very clear: he will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year.”
Joe Biden in Erie, Pennsylvania on October 10, 2020: “I’m not going to raise taxes on anybody making less than 400 grand.”
Joe Biden in Toledo, Ohio on October 12, 2020: “I’m not going to raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $400,000 a year."
Joe Biden in Pembroke Pines, Florida on October 13, 2020: “I’m not going to raise taxes on a single solitary American making less than $400,000 a year. You won’t pay a penny more. It’s a guarantee.”
Joe Biden on Twitter, October 15, 2020: “Let me be very clear: If you make under $400,000 you won’t pay a penny more in taxes under my administration.”
Joe Biden ABC Town Hall on October 15, 2020:
Anthony Archer (Voter): "Thank you, Mr. Vice President. You stated that anyone making less than $400,000 will not see one single penny of their taxes raised."
Biden: "That’s right."
Joe Biden in Michigan on October 16, 2020: “No one who makes less than $400,000 a year will pay a penny more.”
Kamala Harris in Orlando, Florida on October 19, 2020: “Joe Biden will not increase taxes on anyone who makes less than $400,000 a year, period.”
Kamala Harris in Jacksonville, Florida on October 19, 2020: “Taxes will not be raised on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.”
Kamala Harris in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 20, 2020: “We will not increase taxes for anybody making under $400,000 a year.”
Kamala Harris in Asheville, North Carolina on October 21, 2020: “Joe Biden is saying, I’m not going to raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year.”
Kamala Harris in Atlanta, Georgia on October 23, 2020: “Which is why Joe Biden and I are saying, “One, taxes will not be raised on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.”
Joe Biden in Bucks County, Pennsylvania on October 24, 2020: “None of you will have your taxes raised. Anyone making less than $400,000 will not see a penny in taxes raised."
Joe Biden on CBS 60 Minutes, October 25, 2020:
Biden: “Nobody making less than $400,000 will pay a penny more in tax under my proposal.”
Norah O'Donnell, CBS: "That's a promise?"
Biden: "That's a guarantee. A promise. I give you my word as a Biden. That's an absolute guarantee."
Joe Biden in Atlanta, Georgia on October 27, 2020: “I guarantee you -- no matter what you hear this president lying about -- no one making less than $400,000 a year will have one penny in taxes raised. Not one penny. It’s a guarantee.”
Kamala Harris in Reno, Nevada on October 27, 2020: "Joe Biden says we’re not going to increase taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year."
Kamala Harris in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 27, 2020: “Joe Biden says, that we’re not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year."
Joe Biden in Atlanta, Georgia on October 27, 2020: “No one making less than $400,000 a year will have one penny in taxes raised. Not one penny. It's a guarantee.”
Kamala Harris in Phoenix, Arizona on October 28, 2020: “We are not going to raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year."
Kamala Harris in Tucson, Arizona on October 28, 2020: “Joe Biden who says, 'You want to deal with the economy, then one, we will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.'"
Joe Biden in Broward County, Florida on October 29, 2020: “We can do it without raising taxes on a single person making less than 400,000 bucks a year.”
Joe Biden in Tampa Bay, Florida on October 29, 2020: “And we can do it without raising taxes a single solitary penny on working class or middle class families. I guarantee you, my word as a Biden, no one making less than $400,000 will pay a single penny more in taxes. Not a penny.”
Kamala Harris in Fort Worth, Texas on October 30, 2020: “Joe Biden is committed to not raising taxes ever on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.”
Joe Biden in Des Moines, Iowa on October 30, 2020: “We can do it without raising a penny tax on the middle class. I guarantee you -- give you my word as a Biden -- no one making less than $400,000 a year will see a penny in their taxes raised, no one.”
Kamala Harris: in McAllen, Texas on October 30, 2020: “Let’s deal with the economy and not raise taxes for anyone who makes less than $400,000.”
Joe Biden in St. Paul, Minnesota on October 30, 2020: “I promise you, you have my word, if you make less than $400,000 a year, you won’t pay a penny more in taxes.”
Joe Biden in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 30, 2020: “I give you my word as a Biden, if you make less than $400,000 -- if I’m elected president -- you’re not going to see a penny of your taxes go up, not a penny.”
Kamala Harris in Houston, Texas on October 30, 2020: “Joe Biden says we will not raise taxes on anyone that makes less than $400,000 a year.”
Kamala Harris in Fort Worth, Texas on October 30, 2020: “Which is why Joe Biden is committed to not raising taxes ever on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.”
Joe Biden in Detroit, Michigan on October 31, 2020: “Under my plan if you make less than $400,000 I guarantee you're not going to pay a penny more in taxes.”
Joe Biden in Flint, Michigan on October 31, 2020: “Under my plan, if you make less than $400,000 a year, you’re not going to pay a penny in additional taxes.”
Joe Biden on Twitter, November 1, 2020: "Under my tax plan, no one making under $400,000 will see their taxes go up. But it’s time large corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share."
Joe Biden in Cleveland, Ohio on November 2, 2020: “Under my plan, if you make less than $400,000, you won’t pay a single penny, more in taxes. You have my word on it.”
Joe Biden in Beaver County, Pennsylvania on November 2, 2020: “We’re not going to raise taxes on anybody making less than 400,000 bucks a year.”
Joe Biden in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on November 2, 2020: "Under my plan I commit to you no one making less than 400 grand is going to see a penny in taxes raised."
Kamala Harris in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on November 2, 2020: “Let me be clear, Joe and I will not increase taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year, period.”
Joe Biden in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on November 2, 2020: “Under my plan, as Kamala said, if you make less than 400,000 bucks, you’re not going to pay a penny more in taxes.”
Kamala Harris in Detroit, Michigan on November 3, 2020: “That’s why Joe says we’re not passing any taxes on anybody making less than $400,000 a year."
Kamala Harris on Twitter, November 11, 2020: “As president, @JoeBiden will make corporations and the wealthiest finally pay their fair share—and he won’t ask a single person making under $400,000 per year to pay a penny more in taxes."
Kamala Harris on Twitter, November 21, 2020: “Let’s be clear: if you make under $400,000 a year, you won’t pay a penny more in taxes under a Biden-Harris administration.”
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Delaying 2021 Tax Day May Harm, Not Help Taxpayers

A year ago, the Coronavirus pandemic was beginning to impact Americans across the country through forced shutdowns and social distancing mandates. As part of the response to this crisis, the federal government postponed Tax Day from April 15 to July 15.
Today, some lawmakers including Ways and Means Chairman Richie Neal (D-Mass) are calling on the IRS to again delay Tax Day, arguing that Americans again need relief.
However, before moving Tax Day, policymakers need to carefully consider whether it is truly needed to help Americans file, or if alternatives already exist. In addition, policymakers must consider the fact that millions of Americans will needlessly delay filing their taxes and delay receiving thousands of dollars in tax refunds from the federal government.
Extending Tax Day is a costly and time-consuming process that may do little to help taxpayers, as noted by the Federation of Tax Administrators. Delaying this deadline requires a significant diversion of taxpayer dollars and a “distressingly long” list of changes including changes to software, tax forms and guidance, audit periods, underpaid taxes, late returns, and statutes of limitations.
As it stands, any taxpayer can claim a six-month extension on filing their federal income tax return. This is generally a simple process that can be done online or by filing a paper form and providing a taxpayer’s name, address, and social security number. Some states even grant an extension without filing a form.
Supporters of moving the April 15 filing deadline cite the changes made to the taxation of unemployment benefits in the Biden $1.9 trillion spending plan. Under this legislation, $10,200 in unemployment income received in 2020 will not be taxable for most Americans.
However, it is not clear that moving the date is necessary to help these taxpayers. Those effected by this change will fall into two categories – those that have filed already and those that have not yet filed.
Taxpayers that have already filed, including those that receive a refund because they claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, child tax credit, or other tax provision, will have to file an amended return to receive an increased refund.
Those that have not yet filed can file now and file an amended return later or file an extension and wait until the IRS can has updated its forms for this change in tax law.
They can easily request an extension on their returns if they choose the latter option – there is no need to extend filing deadlines.
Rather than helping taxpayers, delaying the tax filing deadline could actually hurt millions of American families, as it would delay receiving tax refunds that they are owed.
According to IRS data from last year, millions of taxpayers delayed filing even though they were owed a refund. By mid-June, the number of refunds issued was down by 12 percent compared to the year before, while the amount of refunds issued was down by $30 billion.
In other words, $30 billion was being held by the IRS for months, waiting to be refunded to taxpayers.
In any given year, almost 3 in 4 people receive a tax refund averaging $3,000. Delay the filing deadline and you delay that $3,000 to a family.
Many people have busy lives and wait until the last minute to file every year. Based on prior years, an estimated 35 million people (25% of all tax filers) wait until the last two weeks of tax season (April 1-15) to file. Of these 35 million taxpayers, more than half receive a refund averaging $2,000.
Last year's delay also resulted in a delayed start to this year, which has resulted in a slower pace of issuing refunds. Delaying Tax Day this year could therefore have a spill over effect into the 2022 tax filing season.
The federal government has taken significant steps toward helping Americans through the pandemic. Where it is determined that more assistance is needed, the government should be sure to carefully examine the issue to ensure assistance is targeted and does not have adverse effects. As it relates to delaying the 2021 tax filing deadline, policymakers must scrutinize whether it is truly needed and what negative effects it may have on taxpayers.
Photo Credit: GotCredit
New Michigan Taxpayer Protection Caucus Announced, Led by Representative Andrew Beeler

Michigan State Representative Andrew Beeler announced the formation of a new Taxpayer Protection Caucus. Representative Beeler and other pro-taxpayer legislators joining will work together to protect Michigan from persistent pressure to add new taxes or continue reckless spending practices.
Beeler, who represents Michigan’s 83rd district, is one of sixteen signers of ATR’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Members who have signed the pledge are welcomed and encouraged to join the Taxpayer Protection Caucus.
“I am honored to be asked to chair this caucus,” Beeler said, “The members of our group all share a common belief that the taxpayers of Michigan need a strong voice in the Legislature, perhaps now more than ever.”
The Taxpayer Protection Caucus will provide a single voice on tax issues among pro-taxpayer legislators and form a body of legislators that believe in the same principle: no new taxes. The caucus will build consensus among like-minded representatives to protect taxpayers from excessive state spending and deficit budgets.
To join the caucus, legislators must be signers of Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment to constituents and state residents to “oppose and vote against any efforts to increase taxes.” Every state (with the exception of unicameral Nebraska) will soon have both a Senate and House caucus consisting of all pledge signers in the legislature.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Senators Should Reject Biden’s HHS Pick, Xavier Becerra

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, President Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, will soon be considered by the full Senate. Becerra has voiced his support for expanding government healthcare and Medicare For All several times in the past. These reforms would lead to extensive middle-class tax hikes.
Biden campaigned as a moderate who opposed Medicare for All, yet his pick to lead the administration on healthcare policies is a self-described single-payer advocate. Becerra’s leadership of the HHS could push the U.S. towards socialized healthcare, which would result in tax hikes for American middle-class families, kill jobs across the country, and would cause shortages of quality care.
"Biden's presidential campaign told America he would not raise any tax on middle income Americans, would not take away their health insurance and not bankrupt America with a Green New Deal," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "His cabinet picks -- now including Becerra -- shout loudly that he does want to take away your health insurance and replace it with a top down, one size fits all government program, burden middle class Americans with an energy tax and spend without limit in the name of a Green New Deal."
See Also: Key Vote: ATR Urges “NO” Vote on Becerra Nomination
When asked on October 22, 2017 if he supports Medicare for All, Becerra said "Absolutely. "I've been a supporter of Medicare for All for the 24 years that I was in Congress."
Socialized healthcare would kick 180 million American families off their healthcare plan. According to a recent study, 81 percent of Americans are satisfied with their employer-provided care.
It would result in trillions of dollars in middle class tax increases. A study by the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund Medicare estimated that Medicare for All will require between $29 trillion and $35 trillion in higher taxes. Taxes which target the "rich" like a wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, a 10 percent surtax on “the wealthy,” a 70 percent top income tax rate, and doubling the tax rate on capital gains would only pay for about 20 percent of the cost of Medicare for All, according to the best-case scenario estimates by the left.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the bill’s author, acknowledged that Americans making more than $29,000 per year would pay more in taxes under Medicare For All. Needless to say, this plan would violate Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000.
This government healthcare plan would also kill millions of jobs, as noted by a report from the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). The study noted that 1.8 million health care jobs would be eliminated if Medicare for All become law. Healthcare workers like nurses and doctors will experience lower wages under Medicare For All, discouraging thousands of workers from staying or entering a career in healthcare.
Medicare For All would also restrict access to care. The combination of price controls and a reduction of payments for hospitals and doctors would create healthcare shortages and lead to a rationing of care. This situation already exists in countries that already utilize government healthcare. For instance, in Canada, patients reportedly wait over 20 weeks on average to receive treatment from a specialist. At any one time, over one million Canadians are waiting for a procedure. It is even worse in the United Kingdom where patients often wait over six months to receive treatment.
Becerra is an advocate for expanding the size of government, one size fits all healthcare, and higher taxes. This is not the moderate administration Americans were told they were voting for.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
ATR Signs Letter Urging Treasury Department to Reject Retroactive Conservation Easement Tax Increases

Americans for Tax Reform joined the National Taxpayers Union and the Center for a Free Economy in sending a coalition letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urging the administration fairly implement the conservation easement tax deduction and reject efforts to retroactively increase taxes on Americans.
The conservation easement deduction was first enacted in 1976 with the goal of incentivizing property owners to conserve land and historic sites through a charitable deduction. In order to claim the deduction, the taxpayer must agree to restrict their right to develop or alter the property. Organizations known as land trusts agree to monitor the restrictions placed on the property.
In recent years, the IRS has pushed burdensome compliance, examination, and enforcement procedures related to the conservation easement tax deduction. These trends will impact taxpayers across the country and could serve as a precedent to how tens of millions of taxpayers are treated in the future.
The IRS began subjecting taxpayers claiming the deduction to burdensome new filing requirements and onerous compliance costs following the release of IRS Notice 2017-10, a notice abruptly released on December 23, 2016 without any prior stakeholder input. As the letter notes, this resulted in actions taken that violate the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which guarantees a basic set of rights to taxpayers when dealing with the IRS.
This notice has also opened the door for lawmakers to push legislation retroactively increasing taxes on taxpayers claiming the deduction. Under the Charitable Conservation Easement Program Integrity Act, taxpayers could be retroactively disallowed a deduction from donations made as far back as January 2016 – imposing tax increases on taxpayers retroactively for tax years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 and imposing tax increases prospectively.
The tax code must be applied with consistency, certainty, and fairness. Taxpayers cannot reasonably or confidentiality comply with law if they believe the federal government will change these laws after the fact.
Secretary Janet Yellen should fairly implement the conservation easement tax deduction and reject efforts to retroactively raise taxes on taxpayers claiming the deduction.
You can read the full letter here or below:
March 10, 2021
Dear Secretary Yellen:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, which advocate for millions of taxpayers across America, we write first to offer our congratulations and best wishes to you as the new Secretary of the United States Treasury. It is our hope that in days to come, we will build constructive working relationships on many matters, even as we may respectfully offer differing views on certain tax and fiscal policies.
Among those matters where we may find common ground is our abiding, mutual concern for a well-functioning, balanced system of tax administration. We were therefore encouraged by several of your thoughtful responses during your confirmation process regarding improvements to how tax laws are implemented, beyond what those laws may stipulate. One of your replies to a Question for the Record from Senator Portman on Section 170(h) deductions (pertaining to conservation easements) was particularly encouraging to us:
Question: …Will you commit to working with the IRS to publish sample deed language so that taxpayers can have certainty when making donations, helping to further this important policy goal? Once we have this guidance, I think it is important that we provide an opportunity for taxpayers to come into compliance with the new rules.
Answer: Taxpayer certainty with regard to tax treatment in all issues is an important goal for the system at large. If confirmed, I will strive to meet that goal through the issuance of taxpayer guidance, and I appreciate the importance of creating certainty for taxpayers on this issue.
Secretary Yellen, we could not agree more with your assessment, and we urge you to take timely steps that provide a framework within which the IRS may develop such guidance.
As you may know, our organizations have taken an active, collaborative role with Congress and the Executive Branch in formulating sound tax administration policies – some of us, for more than five decades. We therefore write from deep experience in cautioning that the compliance, examination, and enforcement procedures evolving around Internal Revenue Code Section 170(h) present grave implications for the entire tax system. Ever since the issuance of IRS Notice 2017-10, which declared certain conservation easement arrangements to be listed transactions, we have noted with alarm numerous trends that will affect how tens of millions of taxpayers – not just the thousands claiming Section 170(h) deductions – could be treated in the future. Just a few of those trends are:
- Retroactivity. Although issued in late 2016, Notice 2017-10 has been the basis of a near-100 percent IRS audit rate of partnership-based conservation easement transactions, some dating back many years prior. Audits are, by their nature, backward-looking, yet they are normally confined to establishing whether a taxpayer faithfully complied with laws, rules, and other guidance that were firmly anchored in place during the year for which the examination was launched. Current IRS audits of partnership easements are often based on the Service’s shifting interpretations of laws and rulings, some of them upending decades of established understanding of how Section 170(h) deductions should be structured. Retroactivity, especially of such an egregious nature as this, is counterproductive and ill-advised.
- Arbitrary Litigation Strategies. Going with the Service’s extremely aggressive assertion of retroactive application of its shifting positions in audits has been its similarly fluid stance in court. The first wave of IRS lawsuits challenging Section 170(h) deductions tended to center on the appraised value of the conservation easements underlying the taxpayers’ claims. Yet, after a string of court losses where the government fatuously argued zero or minimal value to all the easements under scrutiny, further waves of IRS litigation made far more exotic arguments against “foot faults” involving highly technical details of easement agreements themselves – details which the entire conservation and historic preservation communities had long regarded as settled features. 1 See Questions for the Record, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Hearing on the Nomination of Dr. Janet Yellen, Responses by Dr. Yellen, January 21, 2021, p. 61.
- Capricious Enforcement Tactics. Even prior to Notice 2017-10, taxpayers claiming the Section 170(h) deduction were experiencing harsh treatment at the hands of the tax agency. As Senators Blumenthal and Murphy reported in a 2016 communication to then-Commissioner Koskinen, “constituents describe audits focused on their donation of a conservation easement as antagonistic, aggressively adversarial, lengthy, and expensive.” Such reports, some of which have been communicated directly to us, have accelerated since partnership easements became a listed transaction. These accounts bear the hallmarks of troubling Service behavior that we witnessed in the late 1980s, early 1990s, and early 2010s – all of which necessitated sweeping corrective legislation as well as managerial overhauls at the tax agency. Such disruption should be avoided if at all possible, and can be now with modest effort.
- Collateral Damage to Taxpayer Rights Laws. Inevitably, the tactics mentioned above are leading to another pattern we have observed in the past – a corrosive attitude within the IRS toward laws for we which we strongly advocated, such as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights of 1988 and the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA ’98). One of our organizations has already deemed it necessary to file amicus briefs in court cases involving two such problems: the Service’s indifference to RRA 98’s supervisor approval requirement for penalty determinations, as well as its apparent disregard for even the barest formalities of the Administrative Procedure Act in crafting guidance.2 Other problems include the IRS’s quiet disposal of longstanding due process procedures for appraiser diligence matters.3 These cases, and several more we are scrutinizing, originally pertained to conservation easements, but are allowing the IRS to steadily build an arsenal of legal precedents that can be wielded against taxpayers in all types of financial situations.
- Conflict with Other Policy Goals. The Biden Administration has committed to the objective of conserving 30 percent of lands and oceans by the year 2030. Regardless of whether one supports this particular policy, as a practical matter its execution will entail reliance on a variety of tools, including private sector-driven conservation. Given that easements have so far protected well over 30 million acres in the U.S. – a rapidly rising figure – from an environmental standpoint it would be a tremendous mistake to allow private land conservation to be undercut because of careless, opaque tax administration.
The IRS National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) has recommended (and in January reiterated) that “because litigation in this area may very well continue for years,” the Service ought to “[d]evelop and publish additional guidance that contains sample easement provisions to assist taxpayers in drafting deeds that satisfy the statutory requirements for qualified conservation contributions.”4 This sensible approach could, under your leadership, be quickly facilitated by forming a working group of expert stakeholders inside and outside of government under a 90-day deadline to formulate the guidance. This in turn could be subject to public notice and comment so that, by late summer of this year, a great measure of consistency and transparency could finally be brought to an area of tax administration that has proven burdensome both to the Service and to taxpayers. As IRSAC’s recommendations some 15 years ago with historic preservation easements, and the creation of a panel to settle valuations of donated art both demonstrate, reaching agreement on complex issues in the Section 170 space is feasible if all parties come to the table in good faith.
Secretary Yellen, we hope you will take this early opportunity to forge a consensus over a long-troubled area of tax administration that can, with a relatively small investment of time and effort, yield major dividends for taxpayer compliance and confidence.
Should you wish to discuss this or any other tax administration issue further, we would certainly welcome the opportunity. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete Sepp, President
National Taxpayers Union
Alexander Hendrie, Director of Tax Policy
Americans for Tax Reform
Ryan Ellis, President
Center for a Free Economy
Photo Credit: International Monetary Fund
























