[House Hearing, 112 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] IRS: ENFORCING OBAMACARE'S NEW RULES AND TAXES ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ AUGUST 2, 2012 __________ Serial No. 112-187 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76-370 WASHINGTON : 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected] COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania VACANCY Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director Robert Borden, General Counsel Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on August 2, 2012................................... 1 WITNESSES Mr. Mark Everson, Vice Chairman, Alliantgroup Oral Statement............................................... 8 Written Statement............................................ 11 Ms. Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, Internal Revenue Service Oral Statement............................................... 20 Written Statement............................................ 22 Mr. Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee University Oral Statement............................................... 35 Written Statement............................................ 37 Mr. Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute Oral Statement............................................... 45 Written Statement............................................ 47 The Honorable Douglas Shulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Oral Statement............................................... 84 Written Statement............................................ 87 APPENDIX The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Member of Congress from the State of Maryland, Opening Statement........................... 106 Letter to the Honorable Douglas Shulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue........................................................ 108 Yes, the Federal Exchange Can Offer Premium Tax Credits by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost......................................... 111 Legal Analysis of Availability of Premium Tax Credits in State and Federally Created Exchanges Pursuant to the Affordable Care Act from Jennifer Staman and Todd Garvey, Legislative Attorneys 113 Questions for the Honorable Douglas Shulman...................... 123 Mr. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy), Response to a letter to Commissioner Shulman regarding section 36B of The Internal Revenue Code.......................................... 134 IRS: ENFORCING OBAMACARE'S NEW RULES AND TAXES ---------- Thursday, August 2, 2012, House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m. in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Issa, McHenry, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, Buerkle, Gosar, Labrador, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Kelly, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Tierney, Connolly, Davis, and Murphy. Also present: Representative Roe. Staff Present: Brian Blase, Majority Professional Staff Member; Molly Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Majority Staff Director; Sharon Casey, Majority Senior Assistant Clerk; John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Christopher Hixon, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Christine Martin, Majority Counsel; Mary Pritchau, Majority Professional Staff Member; Tegan Millspaw, Majority Professional Staff Member; Jeff Solsby, Majority Senior Communications Advisor; Rebecca Watkins, Majority Press Secretary; Kevin Corbin, Minority Deputy Clerk; Yvette Cravins, Minority Counsel; Ashley Atienne, Minority Director of Communications; Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Minority Chief Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Carla Hultberg, Minority Chief Clerk; Una Lee, Minority Counsel; and Suzanne Owen, Minority Health Policy Advisor. Chairman Issa. The Committee will come to order. The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles: first, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent; and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective Government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their Government. Our job is to work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. Today we meet because President Obama's health care law, which was hastily written here in the House, so much so that it was once said we have to pass it to find out what's in it, now begins to be implemented. As we implement over 20 new tax laws, the IRS, always willing to say we can do it, it will be difficult, but we can do it, is going to be asked to invade American's lives like never before. Who you are sleeping with, who is in your bedroom, who you are married to or not married to will, in fact, affect your status, and perhaps cause your taxes to be taken retroactively because of a change in income, marital status, persons living within the home during the year. President Obama said you could keep the health care you wanted, but, of course, that is not happening. It is not happening in such great numbers that States who decided to rely on subsidized, under the Obama health care plan, subsidized health care are being told that involuntarily the Federal Government is setting up exchanges that will, in fact, preempt State's rights, preempt Federalism once again. Under the letter and the discussion on the House floor of ObamaCare, it was very clear that States could choose whether or not to set up exchanges, and if they did not, Federal exchanges would not be subsidized. It was considered to be an incentive, an incentive that only four States have chosen. Americans know today that, in fact, this was one of the largest and most complex tax increases in American history. We know that, whether you are a medical device manufacturer finding that you are being taxed so as to raise the cost of health care in order to pay for health care, or whether your dividends and interest are being taxed for the first time ever under Medicare, or whether or not getting married could cost you $3,400. The fact is, under ObamaCare if you are making $25,000, in other words, $10 an hour with a little bit of overtime, but living unmarried, you will receive about $1,700 in subsidy. If you live with somebody who also makes $25,000 and is unmarried, they will get about $1,700. But if the two of you are foolish enough to get married, you will lose that $3,400. The numbers are not debatable. What is debatable is, with rules not yet written on a law that was so vague that time and time again the Administration tells their political appointees to interpret the meaning, to find that which is not within the four squares of the law, and simply say it was Congressional intent. I am one who was here for that vote. The intent was clear. It was an intent to deceive. ObamaCare was, in fact, a series of promises by Nancy Pelosi to Democrats in order to get them to vote for things that they otherwise wouldn't have. Those Democrats, some of them here, some of them no longer here, have, in greater and greater numbers, realized they were lied to. Whether it was interfering with the churches, interfering with people's personal right to stay with their own insurance company, or, in fact, interfering with Federalism, itself, and States' rights to choose or choose not to participate, time and time again this Administration has broken promises through interpretation. It has been a long time since this Committee has looked at an IRS Commissioner and had to say what we will say today, which is, Madam Commissioner, you do not have the authority. You simply have the political will to interpret that States must, over their objections, operate effectively State exchanges, because if you don't do it we will do it for you, and without coming back to the Congress for a change you will cost the American people billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars over ten years, that were not scored in the bill. Ultimately, ObamaCare, and I am calling it ObamaCare from now on. I am tired of calling it an affordability bill. It is not. It is not about quality health care and it is not about affordability. It was the largest increase in Federal spending and it scored in a way that was not true. Our primary reason today is to flesh out some of these clear problems, problems where either the law is unclear, or when the law is clear it is chosen to be ignored, or, more importantly, the intrusion by the IRS in our lives. Under this legislation and its interpretation by political appointees at the IRS, we will see every aspect of the American life audited by the IRS in an increasing way, so much so that I doubt they can, in fact, go after the conventional tax cheat for the next several years. In closing, I do not blame the IRS. They are just following political orders. I blame the President of the United States for pushing, when he can't get through legislation, implementation of things that were not within the four square. Treasury and all of its individuals need to recognize that we will hold them accountable for the mistakes and the intrusions into people's lives. Lastly, for the American people that may be aware of today's hearing, there are many things which people object to in the Census, which comes once every ten years, with follow- ons throughout. The Census will not be nearly as intrusive as the IRS will be under this. States will be receiving information and other individuals, the IRS will be receiving information related to many things that have never been within the four squares of the Internal Revenue Service. More importantly, portals will be wide open to those who need to know about whether or not you are married, you have a change in employment, and the like, so the opportunity for leaks out of the IRS outside of Federal IRS employees will inherently grow. I am extremely concerned that January 2014 will come and we will have one after another failures to maintain the confidentiality of this new and expanding information. Lastly, the American people need to understand insurance carriers and exchanges will receive credits based on what the IRS believes should be paid. You may not go to a doctor the entire time. You may, in fact, want no health care. You may be 30 and healthy. But if your income rises, you marry, or do anything else that might affect that standing, or if the IRS simply overpays, they will not go back to the insurance company who shouldn't have gotten the subsidy; they will go to you and take the money. You will be dunned by the IRS, an organization which can pursue you through bankruptcy, which has no limit to its powers, to eventually collect back money that you may not have wanted to spend. And, by the way, that $3,400 on the board and others, your employer will also first be told that he participates under ObamaCare in that subsidy if he doesn't offer health care and you chose an exchange, but oh, by the way, it is doubtful whether or not he will get it back as they choose to collect it from somebody who ultimately made more pay than what was possible for the subsidy. That and so many other questions, so many other dozens of questions, are with us today. I want to thank our panel, and recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. Mr. Cummings. Good morning. I have said it to my constituents and I have said it to my family, the 30 years that I have been in public life there is nothing that I have done, no vote that I have cast, that I am more proud of than the Affordable Care Act, and the reason why I say that is because I see the people who it will help and I know that there are people who will die--will die--will die-- without it. That is real. And, as I said to some constituents the other day, if they want me to leave my neighbors on the side of the road sick, unable to get preventive care, like the lady that I met the other day with colon cancer who said, Congressman, just save my life. I have no insurance. Fortunately, we were able to work with her to get her in NIH. Then those are the people who will benefit. And I will say that, as we address this IRS issue, this is the United States of America. We can do this. We can get this done. The Affordable Care Act is a landmark achievement that will save huge sums of money for our Nation, while extending health insurance coverage to millions of people. They are the ones that get up early, that get the early bus. They work hard. They give it everything they have got. They are our mothers, our fathers, our friends. They are like Tyrone, the gentleman who lived down the street from me who died, and the last word he said to his wife on his sick bed was, Marie, I have got to get up out of here. I ain't got no insurance. We are talking about them, our fellow Americans, the ones who send us here. So last month the Congressional Budget Office issued a report finding that the Affordable Care Act will extend health insurance coverage to 30 million people who do not have it today. They are not collateral damage; they are our people. They are Americans. That is an amazing accomplishment that our Nation should be proud of. In addition, our constituents are already seeing how the Affordable Care Act is putting money back in their pockets. This week insurance companies are returning to their customers, our constituents, more than $1 billion in the form of rebates and lower premiums. That is a direct result of the Affordable Care Act. Just yesterday women in private health insurance plans became eligible for life-saving, preventive health screenings with no copays. This is part of the Affordable Care Act's comprehensive effort to save money by focusing on prevention. These are the women in our lives, our wives, our nieces, our daughters. It also addresses the historic disparities women face when paying for health care. The Affordable Care Act also has begun to ensure that seniors like my mother, who is 86 years old, have access to preventive care. Young adults have access to insurance on their parents' plans. And individuals are no longer subject to lifetime limits on their care. While all of these reforms are being realized now, many significant changes are yet to come. The Internal Revenue Service is the key agency charged with implementing many of the Affordable Care Act's provisions by 2014, including minimum coverage requirements and tax credits for individuals purchasing health insurance on exchanges. This is a considerable undertaking for the IRS, but we can do this. Experts from the Government Accountability Office, the Inspector General's office, and the National Taxpayer Advocate have reviewed IRS's efforts to date, and they have concluded that the IRS is on the right track to successfully implementing the new law. For example, GAO issued a report that says, ``The IRS generally follows leading practices for implementing such a large program, particularly at the level of individual offices and projects, emphasizing that top leadership has been involved.'' In addition, the Inspector General issued a report that says this: ``Appropriate plans have been developed to implement tax-related provisions of the ACA using well-established methods for implementing tax legislation.'' And in her testimony today Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, says this: ``Since ACA enactment, the IRS has been working through the major challenges, making significant progress. The lead time provided by the ACA has been very helpful for the IRS, and at this point it appears the IRS has used the time well.'' Certainly there are significant challenges in implementing this law, and as IRS moves forward it benefits greatly from the continued rigorous oversight and recommendations from GAO, the IG, and the National Taxpayer Advocate. At the same time, we recognize that the IRS has been actively planning to implement the Affordable Care Act for more than two years, and it has already implemented many of the provisions successfully. For the challenges that remain, the IRS is working closely with taxpayers, the business community, and the insurance industry to ensure that its policies are responsive to consumers and consistent with the intent of Congress in passing the law. I remind us that this is the law. Today the Committee is faced with a choice: do we act constructively or destructively? Do we build up or tear down? Do we help or do we hurt? On one hand, we could work with the IRS and its oversight entities to ensure that the Affordable Care Act is successfully implemented, particularly now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional. On the other hand, we could try to exploit any and all ways to bring down this law or starve the IRS out of resources it needs to do its job. I personally hope that we pursue the first approach; however, Republicans have introduced legislation to do the second. The Congressional Budget Office has examined the Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and concluded that it would increase the Federal budget deficit by $109 billion over the next ten years. It is time to accept the Affordable Care Act, to accept the Supreme Court decision, and to accept the billions of dollars in savings this law will bring to our citizens. I look forward to today's testimony and I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize Dr. DesJarlais for an opening statement and a unanimous consent. Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings, I appreciate your holding today's hearing to further examine how the Internal Revenue Service has been implementing provisions of the Affordable Care Act. One of our chief responsibilities on this Committee is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being utilized both efficiently and in accordance with the law. Unfortunately, it has become undeniably evident that the Affordable Care Act falls short on both of these principles. Just last week this Committee held a hearing on a new Health and Human Services demonstration project that the Obama Administration is paying for by cutting $8 billion from Medicare Advantage. These are funds that would normally be used for patient care. Two members from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office stated that this demonstration project was unprecedented, flawed from its inception, and will ultimately demonstrate nothing. Further, there is strong evidence to suggest that the sole purpose of this project was nothing more than an attempt by this Administration to hide new costs that ObamaCare imposes on seniors until after the election. I fail to see how this is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. There are the sort of examples that we have come to expect from this haphazardly passed bill authored by individuals who told the American people that they would have to pass it in order to find out what was in it. Well, today I want to focus on what is not in it. We have now discovered that when the Democrats were drafting ObamaCare they left out important language relating to Federally run insurance exchanges. Democrats wrongly assumed that the States would rush to set up exchanges once the bill was signed into law, but a majority of them are still yet to do so. Section 1321 of the bill gives authority to the Federal Government to set up exchanges in States that fail to do so on their own; however, the law only gives State-run exchanges the ability to issue premium assistance or tax credits. Nowhere does the bill grant this authority to Federal-run exchanges. The Obama Administration and proponents of this rule have stated that this was a simple drafting error. I don't see how they can possibly make this claim when Democrats had ample opportunity throughout the reconciliation process where they specifically extended tax credits to exchanges created by U.S. territories, yet left Federal exchanges alone. This leads me to believe that this was, in fact, a deliberate and premeditated action on the part of the Democrats as a way to incentivize States to set up the exchanges. Either way, there is no doubt that the language is missing. In order to fix this glaring problem, the Internal Revenue Service circumvented Congress' legislative authority by issuing a rule allowing premium assistance subsidies to be offered through Federal exchanges. Back in November of 2011, my colleague and fellow Tennessee physician, Phil Roe, and I sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner asking what authority his agency had to unilaterally alter the Affordable Care Act and what specifically within the bill gave them the authority to bypass Congress in promulgating this rule. The response we received from the IRS cited no specific section or language justifying their actions. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this letter and the IRS's response be submitted into the record. Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered. Dr. DesJarlais. On June 18th I introduced H.J. Res. 112 which would nullify this rule under the Congressional Review Act. I firmly believe the actions by the IRS set a dangerous precedent that flies in the face of our Constitutional separation of powers. I am pleased to announce that Senator Ron Johnson has recently introduced companion legislation in the Senate. Ultimately, my bill and this issue are not about the merits of the President's health care law but on how the IRS has overstepped the authority it was given as a result of the Affordable Care Act. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not share my views regarding the detrimental affects that ObamaCare will have on our Country, surely they will agree that the framers of our Constitution were clear in giving Congress sole legislative authority. Just because Democrats hastily drafted their health care law due to electoral politics, it doesn't mean they can now throw the separation of powers out the window. I look forward to hearing the testimony presented before us today, as well as having the opportunity to question our witnesses on these very important issues. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. Members may have seven days in which to submit opening statements for the record. We will now recognize our panel. We welcome our witnesses on the first panel. Mr. Mark Everson was Commissioner of the IRS from 2003 to 2007 and is currently vice chairman of the AlliantGroup. I might note, also one of the architects of Governor Mitch Daniels' changes in Indiana. Ms. Nina Olson is currently the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS. Mr. Timothy Jost is professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. And Mr. Michael Cannon is Director of Health Policies at the Cato Institute. Lady and gentlemen, pursuant to the rules of the Committee, would you please rise to take the oath and raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth? [Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] Chairman Issa. Please be seated. Let the record indicate all witnesses answered in the affirmative. As is the tradition of my predecessor, I will note that you have a time and lights, so I would only ask that you deal with it just the way you would green light, drive through; yellow light, drive through faster so you don't get caught on the red; red light, please do a final summary as you see your time has expired. Your entire opening statements will be placed in the record, so you need not go verbatim. It will all be there. Mr. Everson? WITNESS STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF MARK EVERSON Mr. Everson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here. As you have indicated, I am the Vice Chairman of AlliantGroup. I want to stress that my remarks are my own, not those of that business. But I would say that we work with CPA firms around the Country, and some of the reflections I am going to make are really tied to things that I have been told. I would also say that I am not here to advocate for or against repeal of the act or of any specific components of the act. I am trying to help you grapple with this issue of the IRS and its implementation. As the GAO has noted, this is a massive undertaking. That is the wording they have used. Very significant for the service. Nina Olson, my colleague, former colleague and the National Taxpayer Advocate, has said with proper planning and funding the IRS is fully capable of implementing health care reform. I am not so sure. Now, clearly I know that the Service is going to do everything it can to implement it. They always do. But this is really quite a heavy lift, if you will. There are really two questions. One, can they do it, and even if they are able to do it will there be collateral damage to tax administration as they are working on this set of issues. They are both important questions. The Service grapples with three things when it is implementing laws. Are there adequate lead times? I think there are generally in this act. Is there adequate funding? That is essential if they are to do their job. I counsel you to make sure you provide the funding that they need. And then, finally, complexity. There is a lot of complexity and ambiguity in statutes, and that is certainly the case here. As Nina has said, complexity is the most serious problem confronting taxpayers, and clearly this is a step backward for tax administration because of what the IG has said is the introduction of the most complexity in over 20 years to the tax code. So that is a big problem. In my testimony which you have I have raised a number of issues. Let me just mention a few. The first is information technology. This is going to be a real challenge for the Service. And, as you have indicated, reliance on a lot of outside parties will be the case. You don't have to go any further than today's news, reading about millions of trades on the stock exchange going forward because of rogue programs or bad programs to know that errors get made. Systems issues are tough. A lot of challenges for the Service here because of the need to constantly update information. This is going to be a challenge. The second piece you have already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is the protection of taxpayer data. If there was anything I really worried about as Commissioner, that was it. And there is a risk here that there can be disgorged information, and it would be very damaging to the Service and the confidence of taxpayers in the IRS if that were to happen. The other point that I would make is the burden on CPAs. CPAs struggle as it is to keep up with all of the changes in the tax code. They are the true advisors to small-and mid-sized businesses. They don't have the staffs of the Merc or a GE to work through all this, and this is going to be very challenging. We get a lot of feedback on this at AlliantGroup. Before I close, I have got three very general points that I think are very important to place this in the overall context. Health care reform comes at a very difficult time for the IRS. In part, it is Congress' doing. We are heading towards the end of the year where there is a great deal of ambiguity about what the law is. I really do encourage you to resolve these issues, because American businesses need certainty to make investment planning. But beyond that, I think the IRS is looking at the most difficult filing season next year, 2013, that it has had in decades because of the convergence of these factors and the potential for tax reform. So the competition for resources at the Service and of management attention, they only have so many senior managers, of course, this all comes at a very difficult time. A second point I would make that I think is sort of over- arching is the independence of the Service. For important and well-understood reasons, the IRS operates with a great deal of independence from other agencies. I worry that such direct participation of the Service in a major non-tax Administration initiative has the potential to erode the historic independence of the Service. And let me be clear here. I have nothing but the highest regard for Commissioner Shulman and his team. I am not suggesting I have seen things, but I just think that when you bring the Service in closer to the White House and to other agencies you just run the risk of eroding that independence. Let me conclude by touching on the politics of this and how it does impact the Service. I would say that, with the Supreme Court decision and the clear transfer of looking at all this back into the political arms of Government, it is also clear the Service is coming under attack. It would appear that some opponents of the Reform Act will demonize the IRS in order to build a case for overturning the law. The most striking example is the disturbing comparison of the IRS to the Gestapo by the incendiary Governor of Maine, Paul LaPage. Reuters quotes LePage as having said, ``What I am trying to say is the Holocaust was a horrific crime against humanity and, frankly, I would never want to see that repeated. Maybe the IRS is not quite as bad yet.'' Attacks upon the IRS of this kind are unconscionable and will ultimately take their toll on the Service, its people, and the ability of the IRS to collect the money that we need to fund the Government. I would close by saying that I would suggest that, even if the Service is successful in executing the long list of tasks assigned to the IRS under the Affordable Care Act, there is still an unquantifiable real risk that health care reform will falter or perhaps, and nobody can be sure of this, but perhaps even fail because of the sheer number of moving parts and complexity of the new system. Let's hope health care reform is not a modern day version of the Vasa, the famous top-heavy Swedish war ship built in 1628 and when it sailed out of Stockholm harbor it sank 400 feet from shore. If something like that happens because of all the complexity and all the interactions and all these pieces, if that happens, as you say, just two short years from now, the damage to the IRS and the impact on our Country in that regard, not the health side, will be real and lasting. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Everson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.009 Chairman Issa. Thank you. This Committee did research a Coast Guard ship that will crack in two in less than its first 20 years, so we are not completely beyond that at this time. Ms. Olson? STATEMENT OF NINA OLSON Ms. Olson. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today about the IRS's implementation about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As you know, my office is non-partisan, so I take no position pro or con regarding the wisdom of the ACA; rather, my focus has been and continues to be on trying to ensure that a taxpayer perspective is considered as the IRS prepares to implement the law as it stands today. In my 2010 annual report to Congress, I published a detailed assessment of the administrative challenges the IRS will face in implementing the four major tax provisions of the law. Since that time, my office has monitored the IRS's preparations for the ACA closely. Overall, I believe the IRS has done a good job of moving quickly to identify its key challenges, and has taken significant steps to address them, although some concerns remain. On the positive side, the IRS has already issued considerable guidance to clarify gray areas of the law. I view the early publication of guidance as a very positive development, because it enables both taxpayers and employers to know where they stand and to make informed decision about their coverage options, and also to allow others to litigate against those State-taken positions. The IRS also has made progress in developing business requirements for computers and other information technology. IT infrastructure lies at the core of the IRS's ability to administer the program, largely because the IRS will use computer systems to communicate with the exchanges. Early systems development will allow for repeated advanced testing and enable the IRS to identify and fix glitches before the systems go live. My own organization, the Taxpayer Advocate Service, or TAS, has also been making preparations, including initial training of our employees on key provisions of the ACA, reviewing and commenting on drafts of published guidance, designing an online tool to help small businesses estimate the amount of small business health care tax credit they may receive, and conducting a survey of individuals and businesses regarding health insurance coverage and needs that will provide useful demographic information for outreach purposes. Notwithstanding these important steps, some areas of concern remain. First, the IRS and other entities need to step up their public information campaign. The IRS should make it a top priority to work with other agencies to develop and deploy a targeted communications campaign designed to anticipate and answer questions from individuals and employers. As part of this campaign, the IRS should educate taxpayers who receive the advance premium tax credit about the importance of updating information if their income or other relevant circumstances change. If the taxpayer continues to receive a subsidy but becomes ineligible, he or she will end up with an unexpected tax bill when eventually filing the related return. Most taxpayers otherwise are not required to provide periodic updates to the IRS, so this new procedure needs to be communicated clearly. Other remaining challenges include establishing smooth inter-agency communications, minimizing the impact of tax- related identify theft on eligibility determinations, and providing additional guidance for small businesses and employers. I also believe it is critical that the IRS begin to include representatives of my office on its implementation teams. Congress placed TAS within the IRS specifically to ensure that the IRS considers our taxpayer perspective as it develops and implements programs, and with any program the devil is in the details, and if TAS representatives are not included on the teams where the details are hashed out, I am concerned the taxpayers eventually will be harmed. On the whole I believe the IRS will be able to successfully implement its responsibilities under the ACA, but I believe it is critical that the IRS receive adequate funding to meet taxpayer needs. If the funding is restricted, the IRS simply cannot cut spending on ACA implementation, because unless Congress changes the law, administering the ACA is a statutory requirement. Rather, the IRS would have to make cuts in its taxpayer service and enforcement programs, and that would be a mistake. In my 2011 annual report to Congress I identified the combination of the IRS's expanding workload and its shrinking resources as the number one most serious problem facing taxpayers. I am deeply concerned that taxpayer service suffers the most when IRS funding is inadequate, and I therefore urge you to ensure that U.S. individuals and businesses that are trying to pay their taxes and are seeking help from the IRS are not shortchanged. Thank you for letting me testify today, and I would be happy to answer your questions. [Prepared statement of Ms. Olson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.022 Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. I now ask unanimous consent the 2010 annual report to Congress be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Chairman Issa. The gentlelady mentioned a 2011 report. Do you have a copy of that with you? Ms. Olson. I do not, but I can certainly get it to you for the record. Chairman Issa. Then I would ask unanimous consent that also be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Professor Jost, thank you very much. You are recognized. STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY JOST Mr. Jost. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, Committee members, for this opportunity to address you today on the role of the Internal Revenue Service in health care reform. My remarks today specifically address Mr. Cannon's assertions which he will be making shortly that the IRS rule that permits Federal exchanges to issue tax credits is illegal. If Mr. Cannon is right, many constituents of Committee members will lose tax relief that could give them access to affordable health insurance. Just for 2014, 1.9 million Floridians would lose $7.7 billion in Federal tax relief, 593,000 Indianans would lose $2.2 billion, over 1 million Ohioans would lose $4 billion, 2.6 million Texans would lose over $10 billion in Federal tax relief to help make health insurance affordable. Fortunately, Mr. Cannon's position is based on a misunderstanding of the law, its structure, and history. The exchange is fundamentally a market for health insurance, but exchanges will also ensure that health insurance consumers get value for money and access to premium tax credits. Section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act asks the States to establish exchanges, but Section 1321 authorizes HHS to establish a Federal exchange in States that choose not to, which is likely to include many States of members of this Committee. Mr. Cannon believed that Federal exchanges cannot issue premium tax credits. This assertion was made earlier in this hearing. Because two subsection of Section 36(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, which establishes eligibility for tax credits, refer to ``persons enrolled through an exchange established by the State under Section 1311,'' Mr. Cannon argues that this means only State and not Federal exchanges can offer tax credits. The Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, however, explicitly provides that Federal exchanges can issue tax credits. When I teach first-year law students how to read a statute, I tell them you start with the definition section. Section 1563.C of the Affordable Care Act defines exchanges to mean ``an American health benefits exchange established under Section 1311.'' Section 1311 literally states that a State shall establish an exchange, and section 1311.D describes and exchange as an exchange established by a State. Because Congress cannot, however, Constitutionally require a State to establish exchanges, Section 1321.C provides that the HHS Secretary shall establish and operate such exchange within a State, referring to the 1311 State, if a State fails to do so. Under the Affordable Care Act definition of exchange, a Section 1321 exchange becomes a Section 1311 exchange established by the State. This is reinforced by Section 1321, itself, which, again, refers to such exchange, referring to the earlier required 1311 required State exchange. Under ACA, therefore, all exchanges, Federal and State, are 1311 exchanges established by the State by definition. Other sections of the ACA direct all exchanges, Federal and State, to manage Federal tax credit functions, including Section 1413, which requires all exchanges to use streamlined applications and eligibility assessments to qualify persons for premium tax credits. Most importantly, a third subsection of Section 36(b), itself, clarifies premium tax credits are available through both State and Federal exchanges. This subsection was added to the ACA by the Reconciliation Act, which, as a later adopted statute, takes precedence over the original ACA if there were any contradiction. Mr. Cannon's interpretation is also refuted by the legislative history of the ACA as demonstrated in my extended remarks, which refer to repeated references to all States having premium tax credits available. Mr. Cannon claims to have found a statement by Senator Baucus acknowledging that only State exchanges could issue premium tax credits. I would be happy to introduce that colloquy between Senator Baucus and Senator Ensign into the record. It cannot be read to say that. Perhaps most importantly, the CBO and JCT have consistently assumed the availability of premium tax credits through State and Federal exchanges since 2009, and, indeed, the CBO's report from two weeks ago at footnote 14 explicitly recognizes that both Federal and State exchanges will issue premium tax credit. Finally, Section 36(b) of the IRC expressly grants the IRS authority to write regulations if there were any ambiguity in the statute. Under the Chevron Doctrine, the IRS's interpretation of the statute would be accepted by the courts, as a recent Congressional Research Service legal analysis affirms. In sum, premium tax credits will be available to middle income uninsured citizens of all of your States, not just Chairman Issa's and Mr. Cummings' States, which are going to have State exchanges. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Jost follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.030 Chairman Issa. Thank you. I would instruct the staff to get an official copy of the that colloquy and ask unanimous consent it be placed in the record in the appropriate place. Mr. Jost. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered. With that, we recognize Mr. Cannon. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CANNON Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cummings and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to present my views on the Internal Revenue Service's final rule concerning premium assistance tax credits in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I have submitted written testimony on behalf of my co- author, Professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law and myself. It is our contention that this rule exceeds the IRS's statutory authority under the PPACA and is an illegal tax increase. Two facts are key to understanding why this IRS regulation is illegal. First, both sides of this controversy acknowledge that the statutory language governing eligibility for tax credits is clear and unambiguous. The act provides that taxpayers are eligible for tax credits if they purchase a health plan through ``an exchange established by the State under Section 1311.'' That language clearly authorizes tax credits only in State-established exchanges, and the act employs or refers to that language no less than six times when authorizing tax credits. There is no parallel language anywhere in the statute authorizing the IRS to offer tax credits through Federal fall-back exchanges established under Section 1321. The act's authors intentionally conditioned tax credits on States establishing exchanges as one of a number of large financial incentives designed to encourage States to implement the statute. Even Professor Jost acknowledges that the provisions authorizing tax credits ``clearly say,'' those are his words, clearly say, those credits are available solely through State-created exchanges. Second, the remainder of the statute and the legislative history support the clear meaning of those provisions. The only statement anyone has found in the legislative history on this point comes from the bill's lead author and chief sponsor, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who confirmed the bill conditions tax credits on States establishing an exchange. And yet, contrary to the clear language of the statute and Congressional intent, this IRS regulation purports to issue tax credits in States that do not establish an exchange. Under the law's employer mandate, those illegal tax credits will trigger an illegal $2,000 per employee tax on employers and unlawfully appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars to private health insurance companies in States that do not establish an exchange. Since those illegal expenditures will exceed the revenues raised by this rule's illegal tax on employers, this IRS regulation will also increase Federal deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars, all contrary to the clear language of the statute and Congressional intent. This IRS regulation is a large tax increase. It imposes a $2,000-per-worker tax on employers and obligates taxpayers to pay for hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to private insurers. For every $2 of unauthorized tax reduction that will result from this IRS regulation, it imposes $1 of unauthorized taxes on employers, commits taxpayers to pay for $8 of unauthorized subsidies to private insurance companies, and increases Federal deficits by $9. Though this IRS regulation is nominally about tax credits, Government spending accounts for 80 percent of its budgetary impact. Worse than the tax increase, though, this IRS regulation is an illegal tax increase. It lacks any statutory authority, it is contrary to both the clear language of the act and Congressional intent, and it cannot be justified on other legal grounds. It is, quite literally, taxation without representation. As you listen to the IRS and its defenders say that this illegal tax increase is consistent with the statute or supported by the statute or recognized through the statute, notice what they are not saying. In the year since the IRS proposed this regulation, they have not cited a single statutory provision expressly authorizing the IRS to do these things in Federal exchanges, because there is no such provision. They have not cited a single statutory provision that conflicts with the language limiting tax credits to State- created exchanges because there aren't any. Nor have they cited a single statement from the legislative history that supports either this regulation's attempt to issue tax credits and Federal exchanges or their claims that it was Congress' intent that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would do so. There is simply no plausible way to argue this IRS rule is consistent with or supported by Congressional intent, much less the statute. The most important indicator of Congressional intent is the text of the statute, itself. That text is clear. It was there for all to see before Congress approved it. It is not possible that someone who read the bill could have mistakenly thought that that language authorized tax credits and Federal exchanges. The IRS should rescind this rule before it takes effect in 2014. Alternatively, Congress and the President could stop it with a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. And, finally, since this rule imposes an illegal tax on employers in States that opt not to create a health insurance exchange, those employers and possibly those States could file suit to block this rule in Federal court. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.038 Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. I now ask unanimous consent that our colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize myself for a round of questioning. Professor Jost, is it undeniable that there is a cost difference between all States participating, some States participating, and the Federal Government essentially preempting the States choosing not to participate? In other words, if only 14 States participate, our scoring shows over half a trillion dollars less in cost to the Federal Treasury. Would you disagree with that? Mr. Jost. I would agree that citizens of all the rest of the States would be denied a---- Chairman Issa. Okay. So I will take that as yes, it is a half a trillion dollars to the taxpayers or, more specifically, half a trillion dollars we don't borrow from the Chinese. Mr. Jost. Well, a half a trillion dollars that would not be granted in Federal tax credits to citizens of this Country. Yes. Thank you. Chairman Issa. Mr. Cannon, when CBO scored this, my understanding is they made the assumption that all States would participate. Is that your understanding? Mr. Cannon. There is a widespread assumption when this law was passed all States would establish exchanges. Chairman Issa. Okay. But States not participating has a ramification. Isn't it true that a State not participating means that a company would not get a $2,000 penalty plus the cost of the subsidy in that case if there is no State exchange? Mr. Cannon. That is correct. What triggers the penalties against employers under this law's employer mandate, is when one of their employees receives a tax credit through an exchange, if there are no State-created exchanges there would be no tax credits. If there are no tax credits---- Chairman Issa. So let's run through, because I now understand why Justice Roberts made the decision he made. Clearly this was a pot full of taxes. We may disagree with whether it was right, but I begin to see why this is all about taxing, that ObamaCare is all about taxing. So let me ask a question. Under a State that does not create an exchange, does the individual still have an individual mandate? Mr. Cannon. Yes. Chairman Issa. Does the individual then have to seek either private insurance or the Federal exchange that is anticipated in the law? Mr. Cannon. Or pay a penalty tax. Chairman Issa. okay. So the Supreme Court decision that my colleague, the Ranking Member, referenced doesn't change. The States have the right to opt out under this law. They have chosen to do so in huge amounts, or at least not to participate, and it doesn't change anything related to the Supreme Court question of the individual mandate; is that correct? Mr. Cannon. That is correct. Chairman Issa. So the challenge at the Supreme Court, which will occur when the tax is implemented, essentially the first time an employer gets his bill he can then make a challenge that will go all the way to the Supreme Court, what would be an all new challenge that won't occur until 2015, correct? Mr. Cannon. That is actually not clear, sir. Employers could file suit today, and it is a defensible, I think, perhaps the correct reading of the Supreme Court's ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius that the anti-injunction act might not bar an employer establishing standing immediately. Chairman Issa. But certainly it didn't bar on the other tax. But you would say, and I think since Professor Jost only wants to answer the questions he wants to answer, not the ones I ask, clearly this is a separate issue that will very possibly go all the way to the Supreme Court; is that correct? Mr. Cannon. I can't say how far it would go, sir. Chairman Issa. Let me rephrase that. This is a separate issue which would be eligible? Mr. Cannon. That is correct. Chairman Issa. Okay. Ms. Olson, you mentioned in our earlier conversation, I hope you don't mind my bringing it up, that your legal counsel, your general counsel, had made this decision from the rule. Correct? Ms. Olson. It is the Internal Revenue Service chief counsel, not mine, yes. Chairman Issa. Right, but yours being the IRS. Ms. Olson. Yes. Correct. Chairman Issa. That is a political appointee, isn't it? Ms. Olson. Well, yes it is. Chairman Issa. Okay. So a political appointee made the decision that this rule should be made without, according to Mr. Cannon and my reading of the bill, without any legal standing. I'm going to ask you another question. This one concerns me more. In year 2010 report you wrote, ``The new W-2 reporting requirements has raised numerous concerns that reporting the value of health insurance on employees' W-2 may cause the amount to be taxed.'' You wrote that. You also, in your 2010 report, which is in the record, you said, ``To get to the underlying goal of the new law, health coverage for the vast majority of Americans,'' and this was a question, ``Will the IRS audit every taxpayer who does not report?'' These are areas of concern you raised. Ms. Olson. Yes. Chairman Issa. Let me go through this. You raised it again. If you don't audit every single person to make sure that they properly were taxed, then we have a vast hole in which there could be subsidies paid that shouldn't, there should be individual fines, taxes, if you will, $2,000 for those who don't. So essentially you almost have gotten into a situation in which every American needs to be audited every year. That is more or less what you are saying there. Ms. Olson. Sir, the first quote we were saying there is confusion about taxpayers when they get information on their W- 2 reporting what their premiums are, should that be taxed, and the answer is no, that is not being taxed. Chairman Issa. Sure, I understand you can explain part of it, but the other part is essentially, if you don't audit every American every year, then this thing won't be right? Ms. Olson. The second issue was we were raising that as a concern, and if the IRS takes its normal approach, which is to select portions of the population to audit on any tax position, then you are not going to be able to effectively implement the mandate. Chairman Issa. Okay. And I want to recognize the Ranking Member, but I just want to make it clear it appears that the Commissioner made a political decision, which was the new W-2 reporting requirement has been delayed until after this Presidential election, hasn't it? Ms. Olson. I can't speak to that. I think the Commissioner is on the next panel. Chairman Issa. Well, no. Ms. Olson. There has been a delay. Chairman Issa. There has been a delay, and the effect of that delay has been it won't appear for people to see until after this election. Ms. Olson. That is a matter of fact. Yes. Chairman Issa. Okay. With that, I recognize the Ranking Member. Mr. Cummings. To all of our witnesses, I really want to see this law implemented to its fullest degree, because I know that right now, right this second, there are people watching us. There is somebody leaning in a sick bed that can't get up. There is somebody who cannot get insurance. And they are saying, you know, whatever you do, whatever arguments you have got, get them straight because I want to live. And I want to speak for them because they are out there. I have often said that we all are the walking wounded. All of us are the walking wounded, and we are walking yet and wounded we will be. So, Ms. Olson, in your testimony you are generally positive about what the IRS has accomplished to date, and you say that over the past two years the IRS has used its time well, and I am going to come back to you in a moment. Mr. Everson, I want to thank you for your balanced testimony, but I want to ask you this. You were IRS Commissioner. We can do this. We can get this done. I know you highlighted a lot of issues that we need to be aware of, and I really appreciate that, and you are talking about some things that are perhaps preventive, hopefully, that is, so the IRS won't run into this, but we can get this done, can't we? This is America. This is the United States. We are a can-do Nation. Mr. Everson. Let me say this, sir. It is quite possible we will get it done. The Service is going to do its level best. The Commissioner, when you ask the Commissioner this question, he is going to say yes, of course. He has to. His job is to implement the law, however strong or however flawed, so that he can't be then before the Committee or before Ways and Means or Finance and have people say, well, you never liked this law. You said you couldn't do it anyway. So the Service is always going to say yes. I think the Service in this instance is a little bit like that frog they always talk about in the frying pan that you keep turning up the heat until sooner or later the frog is dead. It doesn't jump out. And that is my worry here, that there are so many pieces, there are so many things to do, especially on the systems side, as has been indicated, on the reg side. There is so much confusion out there that I do worry about this. And then secondly, as you and I have discussed, I worry about the impact on tax administration from a failure here. Mr. Cummings. Yes. Mr. Everson. So I don't think this is going to be easy and I don't think it is a certainty that it can be done, sir. Mr. Cummings. You said what? What was the last statement? Mr. Everson. I don't think it is easy and I don't think it is, by any means, a certainty that it can be done, even with very strong efforts by the IRS. Mr. Cummings. And with resources. I think that was one of the things that you talked about. Mr. Everson. Resources. As I have indicated, absolutely, give the Service the resources it needs to do then if you are going to hold them accountable for doing it. Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Ms. Olson, you raised one specific challenge, and that was the need for a communications plan and taxpayer education efforts. Why is that so important? I agree with you, by the way. I think that is much needed. Ms. Olson. We need to tell taxpayers, make sure taxpayers know where they should go for each step of this program, and that for the advanced premium credit they are dealing with the exchanges, for issues on the tax return they are dealing with the IRS. They need to update their information during the year so they don't get socked with a tax at the end of the year. And so we were talking about changing behavior, and we really need to communicate that information out there. To something else that Former Commissioner Everson said, you know, about the burden on the CPAs and other return preparers, I think we need to start talking to them about what to expect as we get closer to this date. Mr. Cummings. I don't know if you have read the GAO reports on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but they are also generally positive, Ms. Olson, about the IRS efforts to date. GAO finds that top IRS leaders have been directly involved in this process, and that IRS has accomplished a number of those, and that the risk of being identified and analyzed at the individual project level. GAO also makes a number of specific recommendations to improve the implementation of the program. For example, GAO recommends that IRS develop an integrated plan with detailed cost estimates and develop procedures identifying and evaluating risk mitigation strategies. Ms. Olson, are you aware of GAO's findings? Are they consistent with yours? Ms. Olson. Yes. And the IRS I know has responded to GAO's findings and is taking steps to address that. Mr. Cummings. Now let me ask you about another report. This one is from the Treasury Inspector General for tax administration and it is also fairly positive. It says that the IRS is effectively using tracking systems to monitor implementation, that it is working on forms and publications and other consumer outreach, and that is has completed plans for computer programming tasks. And overall the Inspector General says this: the appropriate plans have been developed to implement tax-related provisions of the ACA using well-established methods for implementing tax legislation. Do you agree or disagree with the IG's conclusion? Ms. Olson. From what I have seen, I would have to agree to date. Mr. Cummings. Well, my goal on this Committee is to conduct a constructive oversight and to work with you and the IRS to flag potential issues before they become problems. We will be having the IRS Commissioner on the next panel and I am looking forward to his thoughts, and I am hoping that he has listened very carefully to what Mr. Everson has just said and don't tell us what he thinks we want to hear but tell us what we need to hear. With that I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais, for his questions. Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we need to decide today is whether the IRS bypassed Congress, in a sense wrote a new tax law that is a power given solely to Congress, so let's go through first a series of yes/ no questions. I know panels tend not to like those, but let's try to do the best we can. First, Mr. Cannon, is there anything stopping the IRS from implementing Section 36(b) of the Internal Revenue Code exactly as written? Mr. Cannon. Section 36(b) is large and complicated, sir. If what you mean is the provision restricting tax credits and State-run exchanges, no. Dr. DesJarlais. Professor Jost? Mr. Jost. Section 36(b), as I explained, if you read the definitions, does authorize Federal exchanges to issue a tax credit, so no, there is no problem. Dr. DesJarlais. There is no problem. Thank you. In one part of the law it authorizes tax credits for people who purchase a qualified health plan through an exchange established by a State under Section 1311, and even people who defend the IRS on this issue, such as yourself, Professor Jost, say that this part of the law is clear. Is there any part of the statute that prevents you from doing just that, offering tax credits only in State-run exchanges? Mr. Jost. Again, the definitions. Dr. DesJarlais. Mr. Cannon, is there any part of the statute that prevents you from doing just that, offering tax credits? Mr. Cannon. No. Dr. DesJarlais. No. Okay. Mr. Cannon. No. In fact, the statute requires that. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Is there any part of the statute that conflicts with that, Mr. Cannon? Mr. Cannon. No. In fact, all other elements of the law support the clear meaning of that limitation of tax credits to health insurance exchanges established by the State under Section 1311, and established by the State. Those words are key. Dr. DesJarlais. What about the information reporting requirement? Mr. Cannon. That does not conflict. It does require exchanges established under Section 1321 by the Federal Government to report information related to eligibility for tax credits and the advanced payment of tax credits to the Treasury Secretary and to individuals enrolled through those exchanges. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Mr. Cannon. But that does not conflict in any way with the limitation of tax credits to State-run exchanges. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. So what is stopping the IRS from implementing the tax credit provision exactly as written and exchanges from implementing the information reporting requirement exactly as written, or can they both be implemented exactly as written without conflicting with each other? Mr. Cannon. The latter. They can both be implemented exactly as written without any conflict. Dr. DesJarlais. Agreed, Professor Jost? Mr. Jost. I would agree because, again, Federal exchanges can issue premium tax credits and can report. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Do you agree that when authorizing these premium assistance tax credits Internal Revenue Code explicitly refers to only health insurance exchanges as established by the States under 1311, Professor Jost? Mr. Jost. I do, and, again---- Dr. DesJarlais. Mr. Cannon? Mr. Jost.--given the definition, that means Federal exchanges. Mr. Cannon. That is what the statute says, but I would disagree with Professor Jost that the Federal Government can establish a health insurance exchange established by the State, which is what Section 1311 requires. And that claim is completely inconsistent with the text of the law. Dr. DesJarlais. Simple question: do you agree that when authorizing those tax credits the IRC reportedly refers to exchanges established by the State under 1311? Mr. Cannon. That is correct. Dr. DesJarlais. Professor Jost, do you agree with that? Mr. Jost. Again, given the definition that includes Federal exchanges. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Do you agree that the ruling providing tax credits in Federal exchanges will trigger penalties against employers under the employer mandate in States with Federal exchanges, Professor Jost? Mr. Jost. If they do not offer health insurance or adequate or affordable insurance and their employees go into the exchange and get Federal premium tax credits, yes. Dr. DesJarlais. Mr. Cannon, yes or no. Mr. Cannon. Yes. Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you. Are you aware, Professor Jost, of how many time state reconciliation bill, the Health Care and Education Act, amends Section 1401 of the ObamaCare law which created IRC Section 36(b) authorizing the tax credits in State- created exchanges? Mr. Jost. Well, at least once, but I don't know off the top of my head. Dr. DesJarlais. Seven times. Are you aware of how many times that the same reconciliation bill amended Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act which authorizes cost-sharing subsidies, credits in State-created exchanges? Mr. Jost. Not off the top of my head. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Five times. So a total of 12 times. So if Congress intended to offer tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies through Federal exchanges, then why didn't Congress include any language to that effect among the 12 amendments within the reconciliation bill authorizing tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies through exchanges established by U.S. territories? Is that a coincidence? Mr. Jost. Again, it had already authorized Federal exhibits to issue tax credits, and therefore there was no need to amend it. Dr. DesJarlais. Mr. Cannon, do you agree? Is he going wrong here? Mr. Cannon. There is no language authorizing tax credits in Federal exchanges, and the claim that Professor Jost is making is not supported by the text. What he is saying is that the Federal Government can create a health insurance exchange for purposes of Section 1311, but Section 1311, itself, clearly says that, for purposes of that section, ``an exchange shall be a Governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.'' It is simply implausible to argue that the Federal Government can establish an exchange that is established by a State. Dr. DesJarlais. In fact, we know it was their intent to entice or almost coerce States into signing up for these exchanges. They thought that when ObamaCare was released the States would just line up and sign up for these exchanges, but when they didn't they realized they had a real problem. But the intent of the bill was clear. That is what they were trying to do. Do you agree? Mr. Cannon. And that intent was revealed by the Senate Finance Committee, the Chairman Max Baucus. When challenged by opponents of the bill in his Committee he said that it does condition tax credits on the State creating an exchange. Chairman Issa. The gentleman may finish the answer if he wants. You did? Mr. Cannon. Yes. Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time is expired. Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for his questions. Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing also. Ms. Olson, opponents of health reform legislation have unfairly characterized the Affordable Care Act as resulting in ``an unprecedented expansion of the IRS powers.'' To be honest, I am not exactly sure of what they are talking about, so let's look at some of the possibilities. One claim they appear to be making is that the IRS has the new authority to distribute billions of dollars in tax credits to individuals purchasing health insurance on the exchanges. I think that is a good thing, but it seems that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not. Ms. Olson, does this aspect of the Affordable Care Act represent an unprecedented expansion of the IRS powers? Or does the IRS have decades of experience with distributing funds as part of similar social programs, like when the IRS distributed the Bush Administration's economic stimulus payment? Another claim that opponents of the law are making is that the IRS will have access to individuals' personal health information when they are verifying insurance coverage. Are these accurate assertions? Ms. Olson. I view ACA not as an unprecedented expansion of IRS powers, but rather an unprecedented expansion of IRS work. The powers that we have in the law are powers that reside in tax administration, period. We implement the earned income tax credit, which is billions of dollars; the first-time homebuyer credit; as you referenced, the economic stimulus payment. We are a disperser of payments, and that trend has been happening since the 1970s. In terms of health information that we would get, my understanding is that we would get the information from insurers whether or not the taxpayer was covered, and essentially nothing else. The amount of the premium paid. And that would be it. Nothing about their state of health or anything like that. That is new information that we will be getting; however, we have always been getting information from third parties. So it is not a new approach giving us information; it is new information. Mr. Davis. Well, let me proceed. A number of people appear to still believe that the IRS will be subjecting individuals to liens or levies or even jail time if they fail to purchase insurance. Is this from your analysis? Ms. Olson. No. The law, at my urging, in fact, prevents the IRS with respect to the individual mandate, what people call the individual mandate, the IRS is prevented from issuing liens or levies or its other enforcement action. It can collect that mandate through what we call refund offset, where a taxpayer has a refund coming to them and we would offset that refund amount with the amount of the penalty. Mr. Davis. And if low-income taxpayers cannot afford health insurance, will they be subject to a penalty? Ms. Olson. There are many provisions in the law allowing for exemptions, both for hardship, and the mandate only applies to taxpayers starting at a certain level of income. Mr. Davis. Some folks have claimed that the Affordable Care Act will require the IRS to hire 16,000 new enforcement agents. The Commissioner has said on a number of occasions that this is a made-up number with no basis in fact. Is this your understanding, perhaps, as well? Ms. Olson. I think the Commissioner can certainly speak on the next panel about this. The internal conversations, my understanding is that we are maybe looking at, going forward, 800, 860 full-time equivalents for doing this work once it is implemented. Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. I now ask unanimous consent that Professor Jost's September 11, 2011, article, Yes, the Federal Exchange Can Offer Premium Tax Credits be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Chairman Issa. Professor Jost, my staff has asked me to give you an opportunity to clarify an answer you gave to Dr. DesJarlais. You said that it was in the act, in the September 11th you said it was a drafting error. Can you reconcile? Is it in the act in written language, or in your September 11, 2011, article were you correct that it was, in fact, clearly left out of the act? Mr. Jost. I have learned over the last year a bit more about the statute, and that is something that I think is worth doing. Chairman Issa. I just want to---- Mr. Jost. I think the statute could have been better drafted, but I think if you read the statute as a whole, including the definitions, it does authorize Federal exchanges and I was wrong at that point. Chairman Issa. Okay. So you are saying 2011 is incorrect, the article, and you now stand by your testimony? Mr. Jost. That part of the 2011 article was incorrect, and I now stand by my testimony. Thank you. Chairman Issa. Thank you very much. We now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg. Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the insertion of the music at that proper time was probably coming from the Sovereign of the Ages saying that we are living in a fantasy world that this thing is going to work, and so maybe that music will come in again at some time. As I understand from what I hear and what I read, what I have heard today, that tax credit eligibility and size are determined by a formula that includes a number of things, details. The tax credits are sent directly from Treasury to health insurance companies. Ms. Olson, you have stated that ``taxpayers who did not update their household information during the year may find that they owe a significant amount of money at the end of the year. Money they likely do not have.'' I would concur with you on that statement. At least my concerns would concur with you. What type of information will households have to update? Ms. Olson. If they are determined by the exchange in advance that they are eligible for these advance payments of their health care premium, they will need to let the exchanges know if they have gotten an increase in salary, because that may make them ineligible for the full amount of credits that they are getting. On the other hand, if they have a child may become ineligible in their household, someone may die in their household. On the other hand, they may be entitled to more credit if they get unemployed or something like that. But the point is it is the changing of their circumstances that they are going to have to update it during the year, and that they could end up owing money at the end of the year is a risk and I am very concerned about that. Mr. Walberg. And even with different States, changing States, as many people have to do just to find a job now, changing States with different provisions in their exchanges could make it very difficult, as well? Ms. Olson. It could very well be. Mr. Walberg. You know, I come from the aspect if you are a person who has to file a quarterly report, you understand the complexities of that. But if you have a bunch of new citizens who are going to be really required, if they are going to be intentional about it and not run amuck, are going to be filing reports that they have never done before and don't have the abilities of external resources to help them. The challenge will be there. Do you believe that most Americans are going to update the IRS or State exchanges when they change jobs, get married, move States, whatever? Ms. Olson. I think it is going to be a very great learning curve. Mr. Walberg. With a lot of pitfalls. Ms. Olson. With a lot of pitfalls. The only saving grace is about 80 percent, 75 to 80 percent of taxpayers get a refund, so it is unlikely that they will owe money to the IRS. It is just that their refund, average refund is $3,000, at least the first year their refund might be, you know, decreased. I am not minimizing that. That is a significant thing for taxpayers. Mr. Walberg. And the confusion, especially the first reconciliation in 2015, how would you describe it? Ms. Olson. I think it will be a surprise to the taxpayers if they don't update their information. Mr. Walberg. And persons who are in a situation where they are now having to use a Government-run or Government takeover of health care are not only going to have the sickness and the problems that they have, but also the confusion, the frustration, the worry, in some cases the terror of trying to deal with all of this while they are trying to get well. Ms. Olson. I think the agencies are trying to make it as easy as possible. Mr. Walberg. Okay. Thank you for your responses. Mr. Everson, many experts point out that the tax credit most similar to ObamaCare's premium tax credits is the earned income tax credit. Unfortunately, the ITC has an extremely high error rate and fraud rate, sadly. What lessons are there from the ITC experience and IRS that the IRS can take to reduce the error rate and fraud rate with premium credits? Mr. Everson. Well, the program, sir, is very complex, and it is distinguished from many other Federal programs where there is a real front-end application process where you sort of sort through information and then someone is deemed ineligible or eligible for a benefit, but there is no administrative cost to the ITC in the sense that most big food stamps or other Federal programs they have got a 6 or 7 percent monies that are appropriated go to administering on the front end. The ITC is, by and large, like other things on your return. You put it out there, and then if the Service has questions--and they hold a lot of the returns before they pay, because, as you indicate, there is a lot of fraud, there is a lot of just plain misunderstanding--even more of that--that gets in there, and that is a real problem. But I would say the biggest piece is the complexity and the---- Mr. Walberg. So ObamaCare is more complex than the ITC and other---- Mr. Everson. I agree with the advocate's comments earlier that it is about a lot more work, but it is about also very great complexity within each of the many provisions that are in the statute. So I consider this comparable in many ways, yes, I do, to the EITC. The EITC, at least when I was Commissioner, had the highest error rate of any Federal program. I believe it still does. I don't know. Mr. Walberg. And this is more complex? Mr. Everson. Yes. I think it is. Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield for just one second? Mr. Everson. I would yield. Chairman Issa. I just want to verify, Ms. Olson. You were saying individual taxpayers would have to update their record if they had a change. What year will be used by the IRS initially to determine, in 2014, what the subsidy will be? I don't want an open question. I just want to make sure it is clear. Ms. Olson. The 2012 income is what is used to determine your eligibility for a premium, advanced premium payment, for 2014. Chairman Issa. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we got that in the record. I thank the gentleman. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts for five minutes. Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of our witnesses today for their testimony and for their knowledge on this thing. Professor Jost, I just wanted to ask a question about the fact that until recently a lot of the insurance companies were spending, I believed, a significant amount of their premium money on things other than health services, whether it be salaries or bonuses or lobbyists or other administrative costs. One study, in fact, indicated that ten of the largest insurance companies saw their profits jump some 250 percent between 2000 and 2009. In just 2009, alone, at the height of the economic recession, the five biggest insurance companies saw their profits increase by 56 percent. So I find that a startling figure, but I wonder if you have any idea how these health insurance companies were able to increase their profits so dramatically during that time. Mr. Jost. Yes, I do. The medical trend, the growth in health care costs, has been growing at historically low levels for the last two or three years; nevertheless, insurance companies were increasing premiums because they believed that, once the recession ended, people would start using more medical care and trend would go back up. So there has been a growing gap between premiums and actual health care costs. The medical loss ratio 80/20 rule that the Affordable Care Act imposes has resulted in 12.8 million Americans receiving $1.1 billion in rebates that were due as of yesterday, including $300 million in rebates for American small businesses. Yet, insurance companies are still doing very well. I was just reading this morning Carl McDonald says that Cigna beat expectations and that most insurance companies in their most recent quarterly reports that were just issued beat expectations. So we have a solution where premiums are coming down, Americans are getting rebates, insurers are still doing just fine. Mr. Tierney. Thank you. You know, I am glad to hear that. I was responsible for putting that provision in the House bill when it went through the education hearings on that, and this is the expected, anticipated result that we thought, and so it is good to know that your remarks coincide with what the Secretary has told us, as well, and what I think a number of reports have done that. Professor Jost again, the IRS issued their final regulation allowing the premium tax credits to be available to all people, regardless of the origin of their exchange participation; is that right? Mr. Jost. That is correct. Mr. Tierney. Okay. So Mr. Cannon made his argument that the rule constitutes a net tax increase. I assume that you don't agree with him on that? Mr. Jost. No. This is a tax cut. Mr. Tierney. And under the interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that Mr. Cannon puts forward, residents of States with Federally operated exchanges wouldn't qualify for the premium assistance tax credits, so I want to give you another opportunity, just rather than passing your opening remarks on that, to explain what the cost of Mr. Cannon's interpretation would be to taxpayers who do not get their tax credits. Mr. Jost. Well, it is hard to know exactly. I mean, there are going to be a trillion dollars in tax credits over ten years, and it looks like initially probably 30 or 40 States are going to have Federal exchanges, so all of the residents of those States would be denied premium tax credits. Mr. Tierney. So the National Health Interview Survey just released this past Tuesday says that more than one in five middle-aged United States adults and nearly half of the adults over the age of 65 have more than one chronic health condition, whether hypertension, diabetes, things of that nature. There are more and more people every day that need assistance in managing and preventing those diseases, and yet 50 million people are without access to health insurance. So, Professor, can you explain what the impact will be on those individuals of the exchanges coming into effect in 2014? Mr. Jost. Well, a report done by the Harvard Medical School a couple of years ago projected that about 45,000 Americans die every year because they are uninsured. Making premium tax credits available to 20 million Americans so that they can afford health insurance is really a question of life and death. It is going to be Americans whose lives are saved because they can get premium tax credits, and in many States that means initially premium tax credits through the Federal exchange. Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Buerkle. Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this very important hearing. And thank you to our panelists for being here today. I graduated from nursing school a very long time ago. I was one of those diploma grads who spent time doing clinical nursing. And then when I was 40 I decided to go to law school, and for 13 years before I came to Congress I represented a large teaching hospital in upstate New York. So pretty much my professional career has been spent in health care, and one of the reasons I ran for Congress was because I thought the direction of the Affordable Care Act was incorrect. Now I do want to make one point, and that is my colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned we are opposed to health care reform. By no means are we opposed to health care reform. But I would have thought, in a health care reform and in a Nation that wants to make sure people have increased access to health care, decrease the cost of health care, that we would have seen tort reform, that we would have seen the increased use of health savings accounts, that we would have seen the ability to buy insurance across State lines. Portability. Increasing the number of physicians and encouraging them to go into the family practice and the internal medicine fields. But we don't see any of that, and I sit here and I think, Have we lost our way so much in this city that when we talk about health care reform we have to bring in the IRS and talk about raising taxes on the American people by $500 billion? Who in their right mind thinks that what we are talking about here today is going to increase access to health care for the American people or decrease the cost? Who has gotten so far away from reality down here that they think this is the way we help the American people? When my colleague talks about that patient laying in his bed needing health care, if you think that going to the IRS and dealing with the IRS is going to increase your health care, your access to health care, or decrease the cost or improve the quality of health care in this Nation, we have a problem in the United States of America. I am sitting here stunned. I have paid such close attention to this. All of my colleagues have. And I sit here and I think, What in God's name are they talking about and how is that going to help that senior citizen understand her benefits, make sure she is covered, make sure that person who is unemployed has access to health care. This is gibberish. We are talking about the most intensely personal issue for the American people, health care. Health care is so important to every person in this room. It affects how they live their lives. And we are talking about an agency, the IRS, and I know firsthand from the complaints that come in to my office how difficult it is to deal with the IRS, how unresponsive the IRS is, and now you take the IRS and it is not just going to be your income tax any longer, it is going to be, well, I have had a baby, I have lost my job, I have gotten a promotion. All that now has to be communicated to the IRS. The American people and this health care system that has been created in the Affordable Care Act, the largest tax on the American people in the history of this Nation, if one person can tell me in this room how that is going to improve our health care system, how it is going to improve access to those who need health care, and how it is going to decrease the cost, I welcome the explanation, but I fear for the American people that this Affordable Care Act is going to dramatically affect their access to health care. It is going to dramatically affect the cost of health care. It is going to put us into a single payer system which I believe was the ultimate goal of the Affordable Care Act. This does nothing, nothing, to improve the free market. Let the free market decide what system works best, not the Federal Government. We are in trouble when we sit here and we have a discussion that this is the best way to go for the American people, this is the best we can do to make sure the American people have health care coverage. I see my time has run out. Mr. Everson, if you could comment just briefly, we have had unemployment at over 8 percent for the last 42 months. How is this going to impact our businesses in this Nation? Mr. Everson. Well, in terms of the health care piece is your question? I do think that the difficult economic circumstances make the challenges that the advocate has spoken to of the constant updating of the information an even more daunting task as we go forward. The interactions that you have spoken about that are necessary with the Service, and then the complexity, the confusion of the fact that the person is going to be going in and seeing people in the exchange or talking to the exchange and then being told, well, the IRS says you are not eligible. The IRS says you already have this or that. That is all going to converge in a situation where a lot of people, as you indicate, are already under stress because of difficult economic circumstances, or maybe they don't have a job. So I think that the circumstances of the Country right now make it inherently more difficult. Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady's time has expired. We now go to the gentlelady from New York, who has been patiently waiting. Ms. Maloney? Ms. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, my colleagues, and all of the panelists. Mr. Cannon, I understand that your reading of the Affordable Care Act is that it does not permit the IRS to provide premium tax cuts or tax credits to individuals who participate in health insurance exchanges administered by the Federal Government. In fact, I believe you called this illegal. Is that correct? Mr. Cannon. That is correct. Ms. Maloney. Well, the Congressional Research Service has come out with a report on this, their own legal analysis, and they have examined this issue, and it did not come to the same conclusion. And, according to the report, which I would like unanimous consent to place in the record, according to the report it says---- Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered. Ms. Maloney. Thank you so much. It says on page eight, ``The IRS rule appears to be an exercise of the authority delegated to the agency to implement Section 36(b), which includes the authority to provide refundable tax credits for taxpayers enrolled in a health insurance exchange.'' Have you read this report or have you seen this report? Mr. Cannon. I am not familiar with that at all. On what date was that released, may I ask? Ms. Maloney. This says July 23rd. Mr. Cannon. I will have to review that. Ms. Maloney. Okay. Great. Or we can get you a copy. Mr. Cannon. I can comment on that claim. Ms. Maloney. But first I would like to read other portions of it, too. The CRS also reports. It says thus: If a reviewing court ``determines that there is ambiguity surrounding the issue of whether premium credits are available in Federal exchanges, the regulations issued under Section 36(b), the regulations will very likely be considered a reasonable agency interpretation of the statute and accorded deference by the court.'' Now I would like to turn to Professor Jost, if I could. Mr. Jost, you believe Congress provided the IRS authority to provide premium tax credits to individuals who participate in the Federal exchange? Mr. Jost. That is correct. Ms. Maloney. And why did you come to this conclusion? Mr. Jost. Well, again, because of the definitional sections of the statute and the way those work together, because of the structure of the statute, and because of the legislative history of the statute in which Congress, Senators, repeatedly said that tax credits would be available in all States. Ms. Maloney. Well, do you agree with the interpretation that I just ready from the Congressional Research Service? Mr. Jost. Yes, I do. Ms. Maloney. And, Mr. Jost, do you also agree with CRS that it is very likely that a court would defer to the IRS's interpretation of the statute? Mr. Jost. That is correct. Ms. Maloney. And on the substance, why was it important for Congress to give the IRS this authority? Mr. Jost. Because Section 36(b) is, as has been said a number of times, a complicated provision that requires interpretation and requires application, and the IRS has done an admirable job of putting out regulations with lots of examples in them to help people understand how this section is going to work. Ms. Maloney. Well thank you. I think you gave a clear indication why this is important and why it matters. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. And I would ask the gentleman would he yield me ten seconds for a question. Mr. Gowdy. I would yield whatever time the Chairman wants. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Mr. Cannon, do you know of any Member of Congress, either side of the aisle, who said that Federal exchanges would have subsidies prior to the passage? Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, my staff and I did a pretty extensive search of the Congressional Record, including markups and Committee action, on this statute. We found only two mentions in the Congressional Record of what would happen if States did not create a health insurance exchange on their own. The first was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said that tax credits are conditioned upon States establishing their own exchanges, so that affirmed---- Chairman Issa. Barney Frank? Mr. Cannon. No, I'm sorry, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, who is the lead author of this law. So that confirms the clear meaning of the statute. The only other mention was in the House during House consideration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Congressman Michael Burgess. He said, What happens if the States don't create an exchange? Well, a Federal exchange will impose a public option. It made no mention of tax credits. Those are the only two we have found. And Professor Jost and the IRS have not cited anything from the Congressional Record or the legislative history other than the idea that all States would be establishing their own exchanges. There is nothing that anyone else has offered that suggests that if a State does not establish an exchange that tax credits would be available in Federal exchanges. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Clearly, the GSA had a mind- reader at its convention. Perhaps the IRS does, too. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Gowdy. Yes, sir. Speaking of mind-readers, I was going to ask you, Mr. Cannon, a similar series of questions. It appears the professor is relying on the definitional section, and without putting everyone in the audience to sleep with rules of statutory construction, the last statute takes precedence over a previously passed one, all provisions must be read in harmony if they can, all the other stuff that made us very anxious to get out of law school. Why is he wrong? Mr. Cannon. The professor makes the claim that the statute treats State and Federal exchanges equivalently. It does not. It refers to exchanges under Section 1311 as, as I quoted before, an exchange shall be a governmental agency or a nonprofit entity that is established by a State. So that is clear that they are not talking about an exchange established by the Federal Government. The section authorizing tax credits likewise is clear. It says those tax credits are available only through ``an exchange established by the State under Section 1311.'' Senator Baucus' original bill had language similar to what Professor Jost cites. It says if a State doesn't establish an exchange the Secretary shall ``establish and operate the exchanges within the State,'' and Senator Baucus confirmed that tax credits, under that language, would be available only in States that establish their own exchange. Furthermore, the statute, itself, does not address, the information reporting requirement that Professor Jost cites in his other argument refers to Section 1311 and 1321 exchanges separately. If every time the Federal Government referred to a Section 1321, if they were equivalent, there would be no need to refer to them separately. And the Finance Committee bill, which is what became the final law, was different from the bill that was reported by the Senate Health Committee and the bill that was reported by the House in this very important way: both the Health Committee bill and the House Committee bill had explicit language saying that State and Federal exchanges are equivalent. They drew explicit equivalents between exchanges created by States and exchanges created by the Federal Government. There is no such language in here. The definitional section that Professor Jost mentions does not establish that equivalent. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Everson, what new citizen information will be available to the IRS that is not currently available to them? Mr. Everson. I think, sir, that the statute contemplates getting into any number of areas that are non-financial. It is true, as has been already pointed out, it is not medical information, and that is important, but you are going to be asking businesses to report on their plans and details of their plans so that the Service can determine or it can be determined whether they qualify as meeting needs under the statute. And then you are going to have individuals, who will, as was indicated earlier, they are going to have to constantly update information about the status of employment and whether they have coverage or not. I think it can't be said enough that this need for updating and the timeliness is a very real change for taxpayers that is important, in addition to the new areas beyond purely financial information that you as a taxpayer are used to already providing. Mr. Gowdy. Well, back in the good old days we used to have to get a court order just to get a tax return from somebody we were about to indict. What level of independence disclosure confidentiality will exist with this new information? Mr. Everson. Well, I think that is something that the Service is best capable of answering. The Service historically provides great importance to the protection of taxpayer information. My concern is that there are already real protocols that exist, through working with the State taxing authority. I am from Indiana, and working with the revenue department there, or with major cities to share that information. Everybody is used to doing that. These exchanges are going to be in the process of being stood up over a period of time. They are going to have enough they are dealing with, and yet they are going to be charged with protecting this information, as well. You get a lot of problems with disgorging of taxpayer information or information generally. I think there is not a week that goes by where a credit card company or a business doesn't talk about hundreds of thousands of records being just spat out, and you are introducing a lot of new players here. So while there may be protocols, getting that working is going to be very challenging, and I would say fraught with problems. The last thing I would say on this is I worry about the Wiki-leaks parallel where you get not an error of the system but an individual who has lots of records and says, I don't like this law or I don't like elements of this, or so-and-so companies didn't provide what had to happen, and individuals do the wrong thing. There is a lot of risk here, sir. Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. I would ask unanimous consent pursuant to the gentlelady from New York's entering into the record the Congressional Research study of just a few days ago. The Ways and Means has forwarded a specific line in answer. ``Applying the plain meaning rule to Section 36(b), it is possible that the court could read the phrase 'an exchange established by the State under 1311 of ACA' as being clear to not include an exchange established by the Federal Government.'' I just wanted to make sure we made it clear that was actually the verbatim of that report. With that I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our panelists for being here. Mr. Everson, in your testimony did I understand you to say that your concern is that the involvement of IRS in a major non-tax administration initiative has the potential to erode the independence of the IRS; is that correct? Mr. Everson. That is absolutely true, sir. Mr. Connolly. Ms. Olson, do you share that concern? Ms. Olson. I think that the IRS needs to not be viewed as a political or politicized agency. Mr. Connolly. Does the assignment, however, here from the ACA, in your opinion, compromise or potentially compromise the independence of the IRS as indicated by Mr. Everson? Ms. Olson. I think the IRS will conduct itself in a way that it will not be compromised. Mr. Connolly. The IRS currently or recently has had, for example, assignments like the economic stimulus payments, the earned income tax credit, the first-time homebuyers tax credit, and the making work pay credit; is that correct? Ms. Olson. Yes. Mr. Connolly. Did the administration of any of those compromise the independence of the IRS? Ms. Olson. The IRS implemented the law as it understood it. Mr. Connolly. Did it compromise the independence of the IRS? Ms. Olson. In my opinion, no. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Everson, in your opinion did they compromise the independence of the IRS? Mr. Everson. I believe that the items you are citing are pretty well within the bailiwick of traditional tax matters for the Service. What I think you have here is the potential that comes from a major Administration initiative. Again, I am making this context outside of politics and I am not making any substantive allegations. I am talking about potential systemic risk. Mr. Connolly. I understand. Mr. Everson. So I have not seen it, but I think that this is quantifiably different than anything the Service has done. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Everson, unfortunately I only have five minutes, so bear with me here. Mr. Everson. Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Connolly. Okay. Thank you. But let me ask this: in light of the Supreme Court ruling, Chief Justice Roberts' ruling and that horrible word tax, doesn't that, in fact, add more weight to the role of the IRS, not less? Mr. Everson. No doubt it does. That is right. Mr. Connolly. If I can, Mr. Everson. Mr. Everson. Yes. Mr. Connolly. But it seems to me to put to bed a little bit the concern you have, maybe not you personally, about independence of IRS when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a majority ruling of the Supreme Court says otherwise, that it most certainly is within the purview; in fact the responsibility of the IRS, by virtue of his decision of what constituted the Constitutionality of the act. Mr. Everson. Well, clearly that has justified the operation of the individual mandate, yes. Mr. Connolly. Thank you. I'm sorry. Mr. Everson. That is okay. Go ahead. Mr. Connolly. I have a limited period of time here. Mr. Everson. We obviously disagree. Mr. Connolly. I understand, but we have a Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Everson. Of course. Mr. Connolly. And God knoweth why, but they didn't invoke the Commerce Clause; they invoked something else. So there we are. Professor Jost, are you familiar with RomneyCare in Massachusetts? Mr. Jost. I am familiar with the Massachusetts reforms, yes. Mr. Connolly. Well, it seems to me if we are going to call the ACA ObamaCare, we will call health care reform in Massachusetts---- Mr. Jost. I don't, so I am trying to be even-handed. Mr. Connolly. I understand. I am trying to be even-handed, too. What is the role of the Massachusetts Department of Taxation, which is the analog in Massachusetts? I happen to come from Massachusetts originally. What is the role of the Massachusetts Department of Taxation in the administration of this particular set of issues in RomneyCare? Mr. Jost. I believe there are premium tax credits in Massachusetts. Mr. Connolly. Really? And when fines or penalties are imposed, as they are under the law signed into law by the Governor of Massachusetts at the time, Mitt Romney, how is that administered? Mr. Jost. Through the tax system. Mr. Connolly. Through the tax system. Is it not virtually identical to the system Ms. Olson described that will pertain to the ACA? Mr. Jost. The ACA was modeled on the Massachusetts health care reforms. Mr. Connolly. So, for example, as Ms. Olson was testifying a little bit earlier, most people have a refund and you would net out the refund if you owed that fee; is that correct? Mr. Jost. I believe so. Mr. Connolly. And is that not exactly how Massachusetts works? Mr. Jost. I believe so. Mr. Connolly. Ms. Olson, is that your understanding, as well? Ms. Olson. I am not an expert on Massachusetts. I can only speak about the Federal provision. Mr. Connolly. I see. Final point, maybe Ms. Olson, to you, there is a return for every dollar we invest in the IRS; is that not correct? Ms. Olson. Yes. Mr. Connolly. And is it my understanding for every dollar IRS got it produced $200 in revenue? Mr. Connolly. That is the ratio of what we collect to our appropriated---- Mr. Connolly. So, given our obsessive concern about the fiscal situation and the National debt, Congress has, in fact, increased IRS's budget, given that ratio, so we can collect that which is owed; is that not correct? Ms. Olson. You are still working on our appropriation this year. Mr. Connolly. What has happened in the last three or four years? Ms. Olson. Actually, last year our budget was decreased. Mr. Connolly. Decreased? Ms. Olson. Yes. Mr. Connolly. And what is the total amount of revenue owed the Government, not new taxes, that is left on the table every year because of lack of collection? Ms. Olson. It is about $359 billion or something in that range. Mr. Connolly. So $359 billion a year. Now, if I multiply that times ten, that would be over $3.5 trillion; is that correct? And your understanding of the value of the sequester we are so concerned about, we are not going to cancel our five- week recess to do anything about, is $1.2 trillion; is that not correct? Ms. Olson. I'm sorry. I am not following your question. Mr. Connolly. The value of the sequester we are worried about is $1.2 trillion; is that not correct? Ms. Olson. That is my understanding. Mr. Connolly. And the amount you are talking about over that same period of time would be three times that. I thank the Chair. Ms. Buerkle. [Presiding]. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry. Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, Americans know that the tax code is complex. That is obvious to even those that don't pay taxes. I think it is one of the self-evident truths the American people have. I have run into an issue in western North Carolina dealing with small fire departments. I have got about six to eight of them that, based on a provision of the law and how the IRS chose to implement it, means that these volunteer fire departments that are quasi- governmental non-profits, they receive taxpayer funds and they actually have tax collection areas. We have this whole thing. And so my office has had to be engaged in making sure these non-profits still get to maintain their non-profit status based on how the IRS has implemented it. And so there is a lot of grief the American people have with the IRS and we have got public safety at risk based on how the IRS has chosen to implement a law. And so I want to say, Ms. Olson, your office, the National Taxpayer Advocate Office in Greensboro has been enormously helpful to us in going through this whole process and trying to be truly a taxpayer advocate for these volunteer fire departments in my District, and I want to thank you for that. This has been enormously frustrating and confusing, but I certainly appreciate the work that you do and the work that your staff does. Thank you. Ms. Olson. Thank you, sir. I am personally very familiar with that issue, and it is on my radar screen and we are working on this. Mr. McHenry. Thank you. I certainly appreciate it, and I hope that the commissioner hears this, as well, and that you have some compliance on behalf of taxpayers, the IRS actually has some compliance. To that end, and the reason why I bring this up is because it is about the confusing and complex nature of the tax code. And that is frustrating as it now stands, as it now stands. That is before we even talk about ObamaCare, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to call the affordable health care or whatever else, any way they want to call it, but the point is if you look at how the Internal Revenue Service is going to have to implement ObamaCare and portions of ObamaCare, Mr. Everson, you have testified well on this. So in your testimony you expressed doubt as to whether the statutory scheme as enacted into law is even workable mechanically. What do you mean by that? Explain. The IRS can, you know, has a complex enough code. Are you saying that this is even beyond? Mr. Everson. I am suggesting that there are so many parts and there are so many players that we cannot, by any means, be sure that this is going to work. That is not getting at the policy objections that some have raised, it is just simply as a matter of management. That is particularly the case because of the fact that there are different levels of government. You have got different agencies of Government in the Federal level, and then you have got States and you have got these quasi-State entities, these exchanges. All of these are players, plus private parties, companies and individuals. All of this interacting together across these multiple provisions I think really is an extraordinarily daunting task from a managerial point of view. That is what I am getting at, sir. Mr. McHenry. Okay. So thus, you know, if they have more folks collecting taxes and the tax code is more engaged in people's daily lives and health care decisions? Mr. Everson. Well, what I am saying here is that the other piece, whether you get this done or not, the other facet of my testimony is that I am concerned that by doing this, by assigning these health care responsibilities to the Service, which are contentious. They are certainly, as we know from this hearing, contentious politically, but they are going to be contentious for individuals because, as was indicated by the Chair, these are the intensely personal issues. That is the word you used. And I agree with that. You are adding into the interaction of the citizenry with the IRS another highly-charged element of a conversation, if you will, and that can't help but impact how they feel about tax collection, as well. Mr. McHenry. Ms. Olson, to this point, with implementation and your preparations for implementation of ObamaCare, how daunting and how difficult is this task going to be for the average American to be in compliance with this? You say that with the mid-year they are going to have to update if they change jobs, as they receive more income rather than less, or less income rather than more? For your planning purposes, how complex is this going to be and how much of a challenge is this going to be? Ms. Olson. Well, it is going to be a challenge for individuals and the IRS and for the exchanges, and commissioner Everson is correct about all the moving parts. The taxpayers' ongoing responsibility to update is going to be not with the IRS but with the exchanges, where the taxpayer is going to interact with the IRS at the end of the year with the return filing, and that is where we do a reconciliation of what they got during the year and then what they actually were entitled to based on what really happened with their income and their family structure during the year, and there is a possibility of a gap between that, and that will come as a rude surprise to some taxpayers. That is why I have emphasized that we have to really educate taxpayers about their responsibility to talk to the exchanges. My concern is similar to Mr. Everson's in that taxpayers are going to look to the IRS, partly because we are talking about the IRS all the time about this, and call the IRS and want to give updates of information to the IRS, and they will be confused. Where do they go? And will they get to the right place? And will the IRS be helpful in telling them, here is where you need to go? I have said IRS employees have to have a Rolodex of where to send these individuals so they can get to the right place. Mr. McHenry. Oh, Lord. With that I yield back. Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar. Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Olson, you made an interesting finding. Oh, by the way, I am a health care provider. I am a dentist. Okay? So I know something about this. You talked about changing behavior. Is that pretty easy, changing behavior? Ms. Olson. No. Dr. Gosar. How would you feel about that, Mr. Everson? Mr. Everson. I'm almost 58. It is tougher every year. Dr. Gosar. I understand that. Ms. Olson, are you familiar with the Advanced Federal Child Tax Credit? Ms. Olson. Yes. Dr. Gosar. What were their instructions to the American people. Please do not call the IRS, right? Ms. Olson. Yes. That was in 2001. Dr. Gosar. How many calls did you get? Ms. Olson. In one day we got about, it was our first million call day, and they called asking do we really not need to call you. Dr. Gosar. So, I mean, when you are talking about customer service associated with this, this is much more complex? Ms. Olson. Yes. Dr. Gosar. Would you say exponentially? Ms. Olson. Yes. It goes to my earlier point: it is not that we have new powers or new duties, it is the scope. Dr. Gosar. I understand. Ms. Olson. It is the amount of work. Dr. Gosar. So how many customer service people are you planning on hiring? Ms. Olson. Well, I am not planning on hiring people until I know what my budget is. I think that is a question for the Commissioner. I have heard that we will be focusing on about 800 FTE that will be partly IT and majority working on the customer service side. Dr. Gosar. Mr. Everson, tell me, given the quantum leap that we are doing here for customer service, in your estimations what kind of customer service detail would we need to handle this? Mr. Everson. I haven't studied it in such detail that I would be able to give you a number. I mean, the Service is more than capable of having that conversation. But you are really talking, just as the Advocate has said, as Nina has said, you have got a whole new area of responsibilities, you have got potential for whole new conversations. In the Act, frankly, it extends well beyond that. Small businesses, we work at AlliantGroup where I am now, we work with small and mid-sized businesses. They are flummoxed by the statute and all the different obligations that they have. So there are lots of different parties that are going to be impacted by these changing standards, including maybe your dentist shop. I don't know. Dr. Gosar. Absolutely. We have kind of kept the Federal Government away as best we can. But that is my whole point is this is an ongoing dialogue that should be going on the whole year, not just at reconciliation, because it is compensatory backlog. So it is customer service intensive, would you say? So 800 FTEs ain't going to work. Ms. Olson. Well, that is the spec'ing out, but I have not seen the details behind that. Dr. Gosar. Going back to changing behaviors, when you are sharing all this information, you know, and exponentially enlarging the pool of people accessing your personal information, boy, I tell you what, you had better have customer service. And, if I am not mistaken, you are not really known for customer service, right? Ms. Olson. We need to improve our taxpayer service. Dr. Gosar. So let me ask you this: what is your average wait for a person for customer service? Ms. Olson. I think this year it was about 12 minutes on the main phone line. Dr. Gosar. For an expedited form, right? Ms. Olson. Yes. Dr. Gosar. How much longer when we have questions? Ms. Olson. I don't know the answer to that. On some lines these have been---- Dr. Gosar. Hours? Days? Ms. Olson.--hours. Yes. Dr. Gosar. Days. I'm just saying on the phone just trying to get somebody that is qualified to answer. Ms. Olson. Yes. Dr. Gosar. And this is much more, as we have heard the witnesses talk about, exponentially just growing in size. Mr. Everson, I am really perplexed by the safety. I know I couldn't find at least a sizeable leak from the IRS in personal information. Mr. Everson. Right. It has got a very good record. Ms. Olson. It does. Mr. Everson. It is a real strong point of the Service. Dr. Gosar. But the one problem that we have got is we are going out beyond that because we are going to be sharing this information all over the place, and we are also subjugating individuals to insurance companies, are we not? Mr. Everson. There is a tie-in into the insurance companies. I am not sure how that will work on the exchange of what they will have in terms of the taxpayer information, but clearly you are exactly right. When you get to the exchanges or you get to the other States, you are going to have a whole new set of players that are dealing with not just the traditional information but even more information. Dr. Gosar. So how do we guarantee that that is, and you alluded to it. It is sort of like my gentleman friend from South Carolina, you know, this is the potential to share very personalized, like the gentlelady up here said, for sharing personal information. Mr. Everson. There are no guarantees in this area, sir, and it just is a very significant area of continuing focus by the Service. I would tell you any business in America now that deals with this kind of information, it is something that everybody worries about, but this does increase risk. That is all I am saying. Dr. Gosar. One last question. Do you think the health care is individualized and should be personalized, patient friendly? Personally, your point of view? Mr. Everson. I am not going to answer a policy question on health care. I have not got a dog in that fight today. How is that? Dr. Gosar. You do, because your health is yours today and you own it, right? Mr. Everson. Yes. Dr. Gosar. How about you, Ms. Olson? Ms. Olson. I am not going to answer that question. Dr. Gosar. You don't own your health today? Ms. Olson. I do own my health today. I just went to my dentist last week. Dr. Gosar. God love you, and you are smiling. How about you, Mr. Jost? Mr. Jost. I believe that my health care is personal, and I believe that the Affordable Care Act protects it. Dr. Gosar. Mr. Cannon, how do you feel about that? Mr. Cannon. Health care is, of course, an intensely personal issue. There is a difference of opinion among obviously supporters and opponents of this law because, just like other opponents of this law, I think it is going to make access to health care less secure, not more. Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much. Mr. Cannon. And cause more people to fall through the cracks. Mr. Everson. Maybe I misunderstood your question, sir. If you are saying do I think information about my health care is personal and shouldn't be shared, yes, I agree with that. Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much. Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Cannon, my State right now, Idaho, is going through a huge debate about whether we should accept the health insurance exchange, should we do a Federal exchange or do a State exchange, and interestingly I have made a recommendation to our governor and to our legislature that they shouldn't at this time accept a health insurance exchange as a State exchange, that they should allow it to become Federalized. So I want to have a little discussion with you about this. Have these true State exchanges that we are talking about when you are talking about State exchanges under ObamaCare? Mr. Cannon. No. The statute requires that every State- created exchange, in order to be compliant with ObamaCare, that it has to get approval from the Secretary, and the statute gives the Secretary the authority to heap pretty much whatever sorts of regulations the Secretary wants onto these State- created exchanges. So it really is a myth, the idea that States would be able to retain some sovereignty, retain some control over their health insurance markets if they create their own exchanges, because whatever the Secretary would be able to impose on a State through an exchange that the Federal Government created, the Secretary could also impose on a State-created exchange through regulation. Mr. Labrador. Well, you and I probably have very similar philosophies about the 10th Amendment and States' rights. It seems odd that somebody from the Cato Institute and a conservative Republican from Idaho are asking a State to forego the State exchange and actually allow for the Federal exchange. Could you explain? Mr. Cannon. Well, it is a little bit ironic, but what you want is a Federally-run health insurance exchange in your State, which is really just a Government agency controlling the private health insurance market. If what you want is the Federal Government to control your State, then the best thing you can do is establish an exchange because the Federal Government will control it. If a State does not establish an exchange there might not be an exchange at all, because, as we all know, there is no funding in the act for the Federal Government to create these exchanges, and it is not likely that Congress is going to approve that funding any time soon, so this is a real problem for the Administration. They are having to take money away from other things that Congress appropriated money for. I would like to see an investigation into that, frankly. But the choice is not between a State-controlled exchange and a Federally-controlled exchange; it is between a Federally- controlled and maybe none. Mr. Labrador. Okay. If a State would have set up its own exchange independent of ObamaCare, would the IRS penalties apply? Mr. Cannon. The IRS penalties against individuals who do not comply with the individual mandate would apply? Mr. Labrador. Right. Mr. Cannon. Penalties under the statute, the penalties against employers, the $2,000 per worker tax that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imposes on employers in States that create their own exchanges would not apply in a State that does not create its own exchanges. So Utah, for example, could avoid that very large tax on employers by not creating an exchange, and what this IRS rule does is, it first deprives Utah of that choice, and then imposes that tax illegally on those employers. Mr. Labrador. Okay. But if a State sets up an exchange under ObamaCare, it is subject to the IRS penalties, right? Mr. Cannon. It is subjecting its employers to the employer mandate, which is a $2,000 per employee tax. Mr. Labrador. Okay. So when you are making the decision about whether you are going to set up a state exchange, you have to think about those taxation issues for your employers in your State? Mr. Cannon. As well as what employers in neighboring States, I'm sorry, the government's neighboring States are doing, because if you are in Utah and your neighbors all decide not to create a health insurance exchange but you create one, you will be imposing a tax on your employers that your neighbors are not, and they may want to leave your State for other States. Mr. Labrador. Okay. Isn't it true that under the actual text of the law that if a State does not set up its own ObamaCare exchange and the Federal Government steps in and sets up its own exchange that the IRS penalty does not apply? Mr. Cannon. The employer mandate, that is correct, because what triggers that $2,000 tax on employers is when one of that employer's workers receives a tax credit through an exchange. Again, under the statute if there are no State-created exchanges there can be no tax credits to trigger that penalty against employers. Mr. Labrador. And in the concept of federalism, the concept of having the State create something that it can manage, is it truly a State-managed exchange if you are doing it under the rules of ObamaCare? Mr. Cannon. Absolutely not, and for the reasons I just mentioned as well as the fact that there will be hundreds of billions of dollars flowing through these exchanges from the Federal Government, so the Federal Government is going to be controlling all of that money. The Golden Rule applies here. Mr. Labrador. And I just want to be clear. So when you say that, you mean that since they are controlling the money they are going to be telling the State what rules apply for that State exchange, and what compliance, correct? Mr. Cannon. That is correct. For example, Utah's exchange would not qualify under---- Mr. Labrador. Under ObamaCare. Correct. Even though they did it before ObamaCare, correct? Mr. Cannon. Correct. Mr. Labrador. So, in essence, all the State exchange is is another Federal agency? Mr. Cannon. For which the States will have to pay, because if a State opts to create its own exchange it is responsible for the operating costs of that exchange. The estimates have been $10 million to $100 million per year. Mr. Labrador. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Ms. Buerkle. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. I thank the Chairwoman, and I thank all of you for being here today. This is critical. I had a conversation yesterday, and then also today, with Stephanie McCafferty, an automobile dealer who still owns the business. My son runs it. We did build it by ourselves, by the way. We have had this continuing conversation trying to determine exactly what this new Patient Protection Affordable Care Act actually does to us, and I have got to tell you, even after sitting down with the CRS for an hour everybody still scratches their head and says, You know what? We don't know. We just don't know. So, Mr. Everson, let me ask you this: is it true that the IRS will have to collect ObamaCare's employer mandate penalty? Mr. Everson. Yes, sir. There will be an obligation upon the Service, like in many other areas, to make that assessment based on the information that is provided. Mr. Kelly. And that mandate penalty amounts to a $2,000 or $3,000 penalty per worker? Mr. Everson. I believe that is the case. I am not an expert in the exact figures. Mr. Kelly. I haven't found anybody that is an expert in any of this. You are not offending me by answering that way. Mr. Everson. Yes. Mr. Kelly. It is a very difficult thing. Also, since the ObamaCare mandate penalty is assessable in the same manner as other employment tax penalties, is it true that the IRS does not have to offer the employer an opportunity to review and contest the determination prior to assessing the penalty? Mr. Everson. Well, I would say, sir, that is a question for the Service to address. It is an interpretation of the law and they have got to write the appropriate regs. I would expect that the Service will be very careful in laying all this out and want to get, because of the problems we have been talking about all morning, the nature of small businesses, lack of sophistication and understanding of the tax code, they are going to want to get this right, whatever they do, so they are going to have to work very hard. They are going to have to work very hard to do it, and then that is one piece of it. My other concern is then whether the folks in the businesses will understand it, actually. Mr. Kelly. In our business we buy and sell cars and we service cars and trucks and that is what we do. Mr. Everson. Yes. Mr. Kelly. Now, in addition to that, the greatest amount of time we spend now in the back office is not dealing with the services we offer our customers, it is trying to be in compliance with the Government that continues. I have got to tell you, when I am opening the mail if it says it is from the Federal Government or the State government or the local government I say, What are they going to take from me now, or, How are they going to regulate me and make it harder for me to get through this business? Is there any appeals that exist, that come into play--and it happens after the collection begins, right, so if IRS comes in, they sit down, they talk with me and say, By the way, it starts now, it starts today. Mr. Everson. The Service has very clear procedures on appeal rights, and even before things happen you can raise matters up with supervisors, but I do think that there are going to be, this is another area where there is going to be more confusion. Some of these, as the taxpayer advocate has indicated, the provisions are different in certain standards as to what actions on an enforcement side the Service can take. I have written in my testimony I am concerned about that. Any time you introduce variability into a huge operation it is harder to run. So I think that these are all issues that are going to be tough to deal with. Mr. Kelly. And really I am on board with you. It is truly the uncertainty of what this law is asking us to do that creates this. I am talking now about job traders. You have got to stay on the sidelines because you are not sure that your actions are going to cause a problem for you. And I have been through tax audits, and I have got to tell you the thing that strikes fear into the hearts of most Americans is that the IRS is coming in to do an audit. Again, you say, my gosh, I know we did everything we thought we were supposed to do, but I guarantee you that small business owners who do not have, as you say, a level of sophistication, I mean, who does have the level of sophistication? It is certainly, even this panel with its vast knowledge and its experience, it is like I know something about it but I don't know everything about it. And then we go to the job creators, the small business people and say, You know what? The ball is in your court right now. How do you stand up and do that? So let me ask you, Ms. Olson, how long does a business have to pay penalties assessed by the IRS under the employee mandate? Ms. Olson. There is a ten-year collection statute. And I do want to say about the penalty, the small business penalty, that it applies to employers with over 50 employees, so there already is carved out by the law the very small. I think Commissioner Everson is correct that we have got to really work on this with the regulation and the appeals procedures, and if there is an ability to get reasonable cause, abatement of penalties, the things that we normally do with penalties, those are very important issues. Mr. Kelly. And, again, if I understood, you said the penalties are very small? Ms. Olson. No. The have exempted the very small businesses from the penalties. Mr. Kelly. Under 50? Ms. Olson. Under 50 employees. Mr. Kelly. Okay. Well, a lot of my friends have more than 50 people, so it applies to an awful lot of them. Ms. Olson. Right. Mr. Kelly. So if a business reports an IRS error, how long will it take the IRS to fully investigate? Any ideas at all? Ms. Olson. The IRS has three years from the filing of a return, in general, to investigate. Mr. Kelly. All right. So I would just suggest, and I offer this only as a small businessperson who has lived in the private sector for his whole life, gosh, you are making it hard for us. You are making it so hard for us. I would ask each of you, who signs your paycheck? Mr. Everson. Sir, I would tell you, you have made it hard for taxpayers, not the IRS. Let's get this right. You wrote this law, the Congress did. Mr. Kelly. You know what, Mr. Everson, I just got here. I have only been here for 19 months. No, I didn't write it. In fact, nobody even read it before they passed it, so let's make sure we are very clear in what happened, okay? Mr. Everson. Okay. Mr. Kelly. And even the people that are sitting here on this panel today cannot tell us specifically what the penalties are going to be and how much it is going to cost small job creators like myself. So we can tap dance around this and we can pretend that it didn't happen. I am going to show you right now this Government is crushing job creators and turning away and saying, you know what? The problem with you folks, you just don't have the level of sophistication to understand this entire law. As a matter of fact, neither do we, but we do have the ability to come in here and tax you. We have the ability to come in here and shut you down. We have the ability to hold you accountable for a law that not even we understand. So how do you like that, Mr. Car Dealer? How do you like that, Mr. Carpenter? How do you like that, Mr. Manufacturer? How do you like that, Mr. Miner and Steelworker? Come on. Let's be honest with each other. This is absolutely astounding that we would have to have this conversation. You are paid by the same people that I am paid by, and that is the taxpayers of this great Country, and we have made it so hard for those folks to live the way that the Founders designed this place. I am going to yield back my time because I am way over time, but I will never stop fighting for the small job creators that are out there and the small business people who have nobody else to turn to. I have sat through it, and I mean that sincerely. There is nothing that strikes fear in the hearts of people that own businesses than the fact that the IRS is showing up. Boy, I tell you what, you try to circle the wagons and get all your information together. When it comes to the point that I have to worry more about not competition down the street but I have to worry about my own Government holding me back, there is something wrong. Chairman Issa. [Presiding]. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I thank our panel for the generosity of all of your counsel. Mr. Everson, I appreciate your recognition and, to be honest, your seeing both sides. I agree with you on a personal basis that Congress deserves the blame, noting that you are no longer on the Federal payroll. Ms. Olson, I would like to thank you personally for the fact that your various reports and counsel of some of the areas of concern were areas that we took note of here. Professor, I thank you very much for putting out your position in a very accurate way. I appreciate your being here. Mr. Cannon, it is always a pleasure to have Cato represented here. I think you did a great job of expressing their concerns. Ultimately, much of what we said here today will ultimately be decided outside of Congress in all likelihood. This has been a great panel. We stand in recess. Yes, Mr. Everson? Mr. Everson. I just want to thank the Chair and the Members for keeping me out of this exchange fight. I didn't get any of the questions. Thank you, sir. Chairman Issa. Well, Mr. Everson, as you go back and talk to small businesses you consult with, I am sure they will have questions about that for you, so you are not going to be out of the fight in the other side of your life. Thank you again. We stand in recess until ten minutes after the second vote. [Recess.] Chairman Issa. The Committee will come to order. It is now our honor to introduce our second panel witness, The Honorable Douglas Shulman, who is the Commissioner of the IRS, a post that he has held since he was appointed under President Bush nearly five years ago. Welcome. Pursuant to our Committee, I would ask you to rise and take the oath and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [Witness responds in the affirmative.] Chairman Issa. Let the record indicate the gentleman has answered in the affirmative. Please have a seat. As I noted during the first panel, you did a great job of staying focused on what was going here from the back. You have obviously done this many times before. Since you are the only witness, we won't hold you strictly to the five minutes, but I would ask you to remember that your entire written statement is in the record. With that, the gentleman is recognized. STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS SHULMAN Mr. Shulman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for having me here. Thank you, Ranking Member Cummings and other members of the Committee. Immediately upon enactment of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, we began our implementation efforts, which included both executing on the short-term provisions that were in the bill that were our responsibilities, as well as putting a structure and process in place to plan for provisions with future effective dates. The IRS moved very quickly on some of the law that became effective immediately. For example, we conducted outreach and implementation for the small business health care tax credit. The ACA, as you know, also expanded the adoption credit immediately and provided favorable tax treatment for adult children up to age 26 who are covered by their parents' insurance. The IRS's most substantial implementation effort relates to the delivery of hundreds of billions of dollars in premium assistance tax credits that will help millions of American families afford health insurance starting in 2014. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services is the lead agency in defining the structure and operations of health insurance exchanges, with the Treasury and the IRS defining the associated rules for how the tax credits can help subsidize coverage. It is important to note that the credit will be paid directly to the insurance company, which is a major design feature which should help mitigate the risk of fraudulent claims. Taxpayers will then reconcile the advance payments they receive on their tax return. If the credit is larger than the sum of the advance payments, the taxpayer will be entitled to a refund. IF the credit is smaller than the sum of the advance payments, the taxpayer will owe the difference. Now, starting in 2014 individuals who can afford health insurance coverage and are not eligible for an exemption must either purchase minimum essential coverage or make a payment with their tax return. The payment only applies to taxpayers who can afford insurance but do not purchase it. We are already working with tax return preparers and the tax software community to give taxpayers the tools that they will need to fill out their returns in 2015. The IRS process for verifying coverage will be very similar to the one we have used for years to verify wages and withholding. The IRS will match what is reported on the tax return with the information reported by the insurers. For the small number of taxpayers who may appear to have underpaid and were not eligible for an exemption, we will generally follow up with written correspondence. I think it is important that I clarify one misconception. Revenue agents who are trained on much more complex tax issues do not work on resolving these kinds of issues. The law also clearly specifies that the IRS will not use levies or file notices of Federal tax liens if the taxpayers have unpaid amounts related to the individual coverage provision. Because these and other ACA provisions are substantial and require long-term planning, we immediately established processes within our business operations and our IT operations to make sure we could implement the law smoothly. Before closing, let me just observe that the IRS is continuing its long tradition of being a nonpartisan agency that implements the laws that Congress passes. As the Chairman mentioned, I started my tenure in 2008, and right when I walked in the door we were asked to, outside of the tax systems, figure out a way to send 100 million Americans stimulus checks which the previous Administration did as the recession started to hit. We also played a role in the Recovery Act. During the serious economic downturn we set up special programs we called Fresh Start to work with struggling taxpayers, and now we are working on the Affordable Care Act. I believe the effort is going smoothly. I believe we have the proper plans in place. And all of this is a tribute to the dedicated professional men and women at the IRS who have devoted long careers to fair and even-handed administration of the Nation's tax laws. Thank you. That ends my opening statement. [Prepared statement of Mr. Shulman follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.042 Chairman Issa. Thank you. I recognize myself now. I want to start off by thanking you and the men and women of the IRS. I note that your job is a strenuous one, one that has a five-year term. I understand you are the third to have that term. And it was intended to take away the partisan perception, and I think you have done a good job of that. But I do have some questions, perhaps not so-called partisan, but maybe Pollyannaish. You have done, the IRS has done a selective outreach based on ObamaCare or the ACA's benefits. You said it in your testimony. You sent out millions of post cards doing an outreach to educate people as to the law's benefit or tax credit to small business, correct? Mr. Shulman. We did send out tax credits. Chairman Issa. Do you plan on sending post cards out to tell people about the tax increases? Mr. Shulman. No. Chairman Issa. So you are only telling people, the IRS is only telling people about the good news and not telling them about tax increases. Aren't tax increases more something you need to know about in advance for planning than windfalls of money? I grew up in a neighborhood where that windfall is [foreign word], it is found money. This isn't what you need warning for. You don't need warning about good news; you need warning about tax increases, don't you? Mr. Shulman. We do extensive outreach on all tax provisions, and we have started---- Chairman Issa. But you are not sending any indication to small businesses about the tax increases they are going to see under ObamaCare? Mr. Shulman. We have done extensive outreach and we do it based on looking at what's the best way to get the word out for different pieces. I think right now we are working with the preparer community and business community to work through, a, getting our systems in place in a way that works well, getting the interaction---- Chairman Issa. Well, speaking of the systems, under ObamaCare Section 9002 you were required to deal with the W-2 forms, and yet you unilaterally delayed reporting requirements. In other words, this piece of bad news is not going out that otherwise would have made it clear that, again, tax increases, right? Mr. Shulman. Are you referring to the requirement that employers---- Chairman Issa. Put a value of health insurance benefits on the W-2. Mr. Shulman. How much they paid for their health insurance. Chairman Issa. Right. Mr. Shulman. No, we actually delayed the reporting requirement at the request of our information reporting committee that works with us regularly because they couldn't get their systems ready. Chairman Issa. They couldn't get their systems ready? Mr. Shulman. We had a lot of feedback from the business community that---- Chairman Issa. Well, let's go through that. There is Paychecks and ADP. They both got it ready. They are both able to do it. Mr. Shulman. So I am---- Chairman Issa. I am trying to understand. This was something that I think many people who want folks to understand, this is sort of the bad news again. This is letting people know how much is already being paid in. The question is: where did you get the authority to unilaterally delay? You are saying it is based on not being ready, and yet the vast majority of these things, either you could have allowed a waiver and yet still implemented for those who are ready, and if someone was using Paychecks or ADP they would have been ready and it would have happened, right? Mr. Shulman. That is not my understanding. So my understanding is that this reporting, which I guess I am confused about it being bad news, this is just saying how much your current employer pays for your health insurance. Chairman Issa. Well, most Americans have no idea that health care costs as much as it does. This provision was one that I think Republicans wanted genuinely in there so people would understand just how expensive it is, how much is already being paid for. Having over the years had employees who left who were shocked when they had to pay their COBRA and they wanted to know what was wrong, and the answer was, Well, we were paying 90 percent of it, now you can see what you are not seeing from a tax standpoint. Let me go through just one or two more questions. You said that the IRS would not be essentially dunning people who owed under the mandate, but is there anything that would prohibit you from assuming that the first $1,000 owed under the mandate penalty which now is assessed to be a tax by our U.S. Supreme Court, and let's just say they refuse to pay it, is there anything that keeps you from considering that dollar one of taxable requirements and thus having the last dollar be owed? In other words, if I pay in $10,000 and I owe $9,000 or $8,000, and you simply make the assumption the first $1,000 added is this tax that they didn't pay, is there any reason you wouldn't take it all and dun them for revenues owed? Is there anything that stops you from doing that? Mr. Shulman. Let me try to answer the question. I'm not sure I understand it. Chairman Issa. If I don't pay my taxes, isn't it possible you could treat the $1,000 mandated penalty like any other tax and dun me for it with penalty and interest? Mr. Shulman. So if you don't pay that, what we would do is send out a letter. As you know, most people pay the taxes they owe on time. We would send out---- Chairman Issa. But this is a tax that is not collected through withholding. If you assessed it as the first part of withholding, took it out of withholding, and then just simply dun me for being in arrears on my overall taxes, you could treat it, as long as there was $1,000 of withholding, you would take it for this and then treat it as though I didn't have sufficient withholding. Couldn't you deal with that? Mr. Shulman. So we would treat it as, you know, a penalty on your return. The statute is clear, and it is the only place the statute is clear, we can't do a lien or a levy, which is very rare, which we do way down the line. Beyond that, it would be part of your Federal tax obligation. Chairman Issa. I want to get this very clear, and I apologize for running over, but I haven't gotten the answer to the actual question, so let me be clear on the question. If I owe $10,000 in normal taxes on income and I have this $1,000 penalty, if you put the $1,000 penalty at the end then you don't have the ability to levy or lien. However, if you simply collect it as the first $1,000 on my withholding, take it out, I now have a shortfall in my withholding, so now you are not levying against the penalty, you are levying against ordinary taxes you have already collected on the front end. There is nothing that stops you from taking that as the first dollar and then levying on the last dollar against income tax. Mr. Shulman. I apologize. I want to be responsive. It will be part of your overall liability. If there is $1,000 owed, there will be a $1,000 carve-out that there could never be a lien on. I am confused about the withholding. Chairman Issa. And I am going to yield to the Ranking Member, but there clearly was a statement, no question at all, Federal exchanges were not covered in this law, in the letter of the law, and yet you have had a rule-making that covers it, covers it without legislative action but rather based on some loose intent. The fact that we said that there is no levy, all you would have to do is collect this money off of the first $1,000 of withholding and then the shortfall would actually be on other funds you could levy. Any creative accountant could come up with it. I am going to assume that the IRS will do so based on what your folks have chosen to do on something that was outside ObamaCare's right, which was subsidizing the Federal exchanges. Mr. Ranking Member, I would ask unanimous consent you have an additional three minutes, so if you will tally eight minutes I will yield to the gentleman. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Commissioner Shulman, I hope that IRS employees are watching this, and I want to say to them publicly thank you, and I thank you. Let me tell you what I am thanking you for. As I listened to the last panel, I listened to Mr. Everson, and you heard most of his testimony, did you not? Mr. Shulman. I did hear some of it. Mr. Cummings. Yes. And he talked a lot about his concerns and basically all but said it can't be done. And I have got to tell you that, as one who rose up from poverty to the Congress of the United States of America, I know that this Country, we can do anything we try hard enough to do. I know that. My own life has told me that. When you started off your testimony today to talk about what you all have done already and what you did, I think you started back in 2008, you said you had to come in and do certain things. I just like the can-do attitude, because certainly if we stick with the naysayers I guess we won't get anything done. The fact is that what the people at IRS are doing in trying to make sure the law works properly will go a long ways towards helping a lot of people. And I say this over and over again because I mean it. I am talking about people at IRS will end up helping people save their lives and save a lot of pain. And so I want to thank you all publicly for that can-do attitude. I know IRS gets a lot of bad comments. As a matter of fact, Government employees get a lot of bad comments. But when I hear things like what you just said, it just, in my mother's words, who is a former sharecropper, it just makes my heart glad. Commissioner Shulman, in the earlier panel the Committee heard from Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate. In her testimony she explained that the IRS has made significant progress on rule-making and other areas. Let me read from her testimony. She says, ``Since the enactment of ACA, the IRS has been working through the major challenges, making significant progress. The lead time provided by the ACA has been very helpful for the IRS, and at this point it appears the IRS has used the time well.'' Ms. Olson is very complimentary about your efforts over the past two years to ensure that the planning process is on track. I would like to know your perspective. How did you approach the planning process over the past two years, and how would you evaluate your own efforts today? Mr. Shulman. Well, the one thing, while the ACA is a substantial undertaking, the tax provisions for the IRS, you know, I come from a business background, and the one thing I would say generally is that what you need is proper planning, enough lead time, and proper resources to implement things. In the world of tax, we have gotten used to, unfortunately, late legislation, retroactive legislation, and the one thing this law affords us is plenty of time to do implementation right. We had to scramble to get some of the things done, some of the things that the Chairman referenced and we talked about, but the major pieces of the legislation where we have the most work to do, like setting up our infrastructure to make sure we distribute tax credits, the premium tax credits in conjunction with the exchanges, we had multiple years to do. And so there is always room for improvement, but I think our team, both our team who had to work to do the planning, do the immediate implementation, and then build the IT systems, you know, I think they are well on track in doing, you know a good job, so I would give them a pretty good grade. That said, we have got to keep our eye on the ball and with any piece of tax legislation we need to make sure we take it through and implement at the end. Mr. Cummings. Well, I hope that they know that they have a lot of grateful people who appreciate what they are doing. On the first panel we heard a lot of concerns about data privacy, and that is a concern of mine. I know the IRS actually has a great record on protecting taxpayers' information. You may have heard some of that testimony. Commissioner Shulman, what steps has the agency taken to ensure the security of taxpayer information going forward, and do you think that steps that you have taken will be sufficient? And what additional steps do you see being necessary? Mr. Shulman. Let me say a couple things. First of all, this agency takes data security very, very seriously. And we have an excellent track record of protecting the American taxpayers' basic income data. Second, I would just say there has been a lot of, both in the previous panel and also, you know, out there in the general dialogue, I think way overstatements of the risk of data security. I mean, this is not something wildly new to us. Right now we share data with States for child support information, with States for Medicaid, with States for tax information, and we have very strict safeguards around that data. In this case, any data we exchange with States they have to have written procedures in place that we will look at. They have to agree to separate the data. They have to agree to have limited use of the data just for the purposes of the law. They need to train their people. We have an Office of Data Privacy and Security that will go out and do audits to make sure it is right, and the Federal law takes tax data very seriously, and individual employees can be prosecuted for breaching tax data. That individual liability extends out to anyone we send data to. And so this is nothing new for us. Obviously, it is an effort and we are going to have to do it, but I think the concerns about data security around this are overstated. Mr. Cummings. You sound like you take a lot of pride in IRS's efforts to keep the privacy of Americans' tax information private. You seem very proud of that. Are you? Mr. Shulman. Well, A, I am very proud of it; B, it is a cornerstone of the tax system; C, we have done it a lot exchanging with States, and we haven't had major issues. I will tell you a little story. My first day I showed up at the job I went to the Treasury Department and was sworn in by the Treasury Secretary. I came back, and the person waiting for me was the lawyer to explain the data privacy rules and the people who did the training for me. That is how seriously the agency takes this. They didn't brief me on our technology or our filing season, et cetera. The first thing I was briefed on was data security. Mr. Cummings. My last question, Ms. Olson spent a lot of time talking about the challenge for IRS with regard to communication, or communication strategy, taxpayer education about these new rules. Do you agree that taxpayer education is essential to the success of the implementation? And can you please explain how the IRS plans to educate the public about these new rules? Mr. Shulman. Well, there are a few things. One is any time a tax law is passed we do a variety of things. We use social media to get information out. Sometimes we do direct communication, and 80 percent of taxpayers, and it is growing. Last tax season it was up actually over 85 percent, use either a paid professional preparer or tax software. And so a lot of the details of these rules, just like the details of the rest of people's tax forms, gets sorted out either when they are figuring out how to file or get sorted out, you know, with their preparer. So we do a lot of work with them, and we expect to expand our outreach. I will also note that, because this issue has gotten, the Affordable Care Act has gotten so much attention by the media, you know, this is not something people are unaware of, and we are trying hard just to get the actual facts out, and we will keep that campaign up. Dr. DesJarlais. [Presiding]. I thank the Ranking Member. The Chair will now recognize himself for five minutes. Mr. Shulman, thank you so much for being here today, because certainly we have several things we would like to clear up in regards to the initial drafting of the Affordable Care Act and the subsequent ruling by the IRS. I think you were listening to the first panel, and clearly there are some disagreements between Professor Jost and Mr. Cannon on whether or not the IRS ruling was illegal. Why do you think, first of all, I think that the intent when the law was written it was clear that the Administration and the authors of the bill assumed that the States would set up exchanges. Certainly it was clearly mentioned numerous times throughout the language of the bill and there was not mention of the Federal exchanges. I think, one, that the health care law people were very leery of. I think 63 percent opposed this law when it was first presented or even passed. And I think Senator Baucus from Montana clearly wanted a national exchange, but I think the American people resoundingly rejected the thought of a national takeover of health care. So the language was carefully crafted in the bill to mention State exchanges because State exchanges sounded much more palatable to people than a Federal takeover of health care. So were you a little shocked, I guess, when I think there's only 14 States now that have decided to set up State exchanges? Was that kind of a surprise to you and something you hadn't anticipated? Mr. Shulman. I guess I didn't follow, you know, the before and after as closely as that, so I had no reaction. I am watching how this goes. I mean, our main job is to try to implement the law that was written. Dr. DesJarlais. Sure. Fair enough. Do you agree that when authorizing these premium assistance tax credits the Internal Revenue Code, Section 36(b), explicitly refers to health insurance exchanges established by the States under Section 1311? Mr. Shulman. I think 36(b) has some contradictory language in it. Dr. DesJarlais. Well, we can put up a slide. Is there anything unclear about that? Is there anything unclear? Does it mention Federal exchanges anywhere in that section? Mr. Shulman. I am looking at the slide, but I am also aware of the whole statute, so I guess I---- Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Do you recall it mentioning Federal exchanges? Mr. Shulman. Excuse me? Dr. DesJarlais. Are you aware, does it mention Federal exchanges or just State exchanges? Mr. Shulman. Anywhere in 36(b), yes. Dr. DesJarlais. In 1311. That is the slide. That is not the slide. We have another slide. Mr. Shulman. I guess I watched the first panel and would agree that there is a lot of disagreement, and we obviously looked at the total statute and think we came to the correct legal reading. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. The plain meaning of the Rule 36(b), it is possible that the court could read the phrase an exchange established by the State under 1311 of ACA, this was the CRS ruling that the gentlelady from New York referred to in the first panel. It said that the exchange could be clear to not include an exchange establishment by the Federal Government. Indeed, the language seems to be straightforward on its face. Are you aware of that CRS ruling? Mr. Shulman. I am not aware of that. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, do you agree that when authorizing those tax credits the IRC repeatedly refers to exchanges established by the State under Section 1311? Mr. Shulman. I guess I am not aware of the---- Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, it does repeatedly. Why did the IRS add the phrase, or in 1321 in the rule, do you believe this is a dramatic interpretation that in essence rewrites the law? Mr. Shulman. No. Dr. DesJarlais. Why do you say that? Mr. Shulman. Maybe it would be helpful for you to hear how our rule-writing process works. I mean, our legal experts, career civil servants who are some of the best tax lawyers in the world, if not the best, take a look at statutes, look at the entirety of the statute, and try to come up with their best legal analysis. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, basically we are set to scramble because this bill was set to be passed and go to conference, and it did not go to conference but rather reconciliation because the votes simply weren't there to pass the law. Scott Brown was elected and he was on his way in, so they had to rush this law. They knew it was imperfect. They knew that they couldn't force the States to set up exchanges. The Federal Government doesn't have the power to force the States to do it, so they had to try, in essence, to coerce the States in a sense to set up these exchanges, and they didn't mention Federal exchanges on purpose because they wanted the States to do this. They wanted to kind of strong-arm the States to set up these exchanges, and they knew that they had to put out a bill with this language that was imperfect because if they didn't do it before the end of the year, and they did it on Christmas Eve, then they were going to have to deal with probably not passing the law at all. So now you are tasked with basically cleaning up their mess, cleaning up their language, because it clearly wasn't in the bill. They referred to State-run exchanges repeatedly and left out the Federal exchanges, even in the reconciliation process. It simply wasn't in there. So I think Mr. Cannon, his point is that the IRS way overstepped its bounds of separation of power, in essence wrote a huge tax increase, trillion dollar tax increase, that Congress did not intend, but this mess was created when the States didn't fall in line and set up the exchanges; isn't that true? Mr. Shulman. No. Dr. DesJarlais. Why do you say it is not true? It clearly is. Mr. Shulman. I just disagree with Mr. Cannon. I think that this was the correct reading of the law. I have no idea what the reference is to a tax increase, but we are not concerned with that. Dr. DesJarlais. You understand the statute. Does the statute ever say that the credits are available in Federal exchanges? Does it ever say that? Mr. Shulman. There are sections of the statute that directly talk about a Federally-run exchange---- Dr. DesJarlais. Can you tell me where? Mr. Shulman.--and the information to the IRS. In Section 1401, which is the same as 36(b), there's reference about information reporting of premium tax credits to the IRS from the Federal exchange. Look, I fully understand that you have a view on this and that we disagree. I think the law professors before on the panel before fleshed out the arguments on both sides. Our legal experts came down on the side that we came out with. Dr. DesJarlais. I clearly disagree with you, because we know what the intent was. We know why this all came about, and I don't think the argument was clearly refuted. In fact, Professor Jost in several cases rescinded. First, he wanted to call it a drafting error, a scrivener's error. He retracted all those statements because they are scrambling to find a reason to justify what the IRS did. Clearly, this issue is far from over. The companies in the States without State-run exchanges are going to challenge the IRS rule and this will probably end up in Federal court. I don't think there is any question about if; it is just a matter of when. I see my time has expired. I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Commissioner. There are a lot of assertions that people make and have made, and they have said that this is in the legislation, this is in the bill, it is going to cause people to do this and cause people to do that. And then when you look you can't find what they are basing their assumptions on. I know that some opponents of the legislation have claimed that to implement this that the Internal Revenue Service has got to hire 16,000 new agents, enforcement agents. And you have said on numerous occasions that this is a made-up number with no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, some people have even compared the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo, as Mr. Everson pointed out in his testimony on the first panel, which is not only inaccurate but, quite frankly, unconscionable way beyond the pale, I think. Do you agree that this type of non-information, of mis- information is damaging to the image of the agency? And is it true that you are going to have to hire all of these people to enforce provisions of the act? Mr. Shulman. Sir, we have been incredibly transparent in what we need to implement this law. We put forward budgets and then sent to Congress the last three years of information, and then we put forward a budget this year. The budget we put forward this year, 92 percent of it is for infrastructure and technology to make sure that the act is executed. And so referring to this number 16,000 agents, I have no idea where anyone got that. That is not going to happen. And, as I said, the major parts of this law are going to be handled, the compliance aspects, through correspondence. You know, regarding unfortunate remarks about the IRS, all I would say is we have a very good track record of interacting with the American people in incredibly respectful ways. Right now the American customer satisfaction index, which is run by the University of Michigan, which looks at major companies across the globe as well as Government agencies, we have our highest rating ever at 73. Most people who interact with us send in a refund return, and within five to ten days get $3,000 back from us, so I know that the words IRS sometimes conjure up things that people can make scary. The reality is, for most people we are a great service organization. So yes, it is unhelpful for people to use rhetoric, but I think our record stands for itself. When you ask American citizens one by one in things like the American Customer Satisfaction Index, we get very high ratings. Mr. Davis. There are also individuals who use this invasion of privacy. It is very interesting who some of them are. They are not people that I have known to be protecting the privacy of individual citizens in a lot of other instances and a lot of other ways, but they claim that the Internal Revenue Service is going to have access to individuals' private health information. Is that a need in order to enforce the provisions of the act? Mr. Shulman. No. Absolutely not. What we will know and asked for, based on the law, is: do you have health insurance coverage? If so, for how many months? And what was the name of the insurance company? Right now we get information about what's your income, who is your employer, how long were you employed? Do you own a house? Did you sell a house? Was there interest on this house? Do you have stocks or bonds? Did you buy them or sell them? And so we get lots of information, but we get the bare bones that we need to file a tax return. I think it has been way over-stated our role in health care. I mean, we are basically going to facilitate the financial transactions that make this whole law work, but we are not going to have access to private individual health care information except for the fact of coverage. Mr. Davis. Do you see individuals being locked up, incarcerated, liens placed on their homes or their properties or whatever it is that they might own in order to make sure that there is compliance? Mr. Shulman. I mean, the minimum coverage provisions which say that you either need to have insurance or you pay a penalty, those specifically prohibit liens, levies, criminal prosecution, and so they are treated very different from other liabilities owed to the Federal Government. Mr. Davis. So then many of these assertions are quite honestly inaccurate? Mr. Shulman. Well, some of the ones you brought up, yes. Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much. My time is expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Dr. DesJarlais. I thank the gentleman. I think, being as we have a small dias today, I think we can go through a second round of questioning if you will indulge us. Can you describe the universe of people who will be subject to the new HHS reporting requirements? We understand that it is expected that 20 million people will fall under these requirements; is that correct? Mr. Shulman. I'm sorry? Which requirements? Dr. DesJarlais. The HHS reporting requirements. Mr. Shulman. I am not sure what the HHS reporting requirements are or what you are referring to. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, under the HHS rules, isn't it true that for these Americans they will now be required to tell the State and the IRS when they change jobs within 30 days of the change? Mr. Shulman. I think you are referring to the people who receive a premium tax credit? Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Isn't it true? Yes, you are referring to that. Mr. Shulman. So the way the premium tax credit works is people go to an exchange. If they have not been offered affordable health care coverage by their employer, they may be eligible for a tax credit to help subsidize the purchase of insurance. And that is based on a number of factors, including their income. If their income changes, they have an obligation to come back and say that the income changes so that the amount of the credit can be adjusted. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. And that is within 30 days? Mr. Shulman. I am really not aware of the details of when that reporting back to the exchanges are, because that is not a piece of the act that we will be administering. That falls with, as you said, HHS and the exchanges. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. If they don't report the changes, assuming it is 30 days in the window, what are the consequences and how do you plan to enforce the rule? Mr. Shulman. So the way the premium tax credit works, which I referred to in my opening comments, is people go to the exchange, they determine the eligibility for a credit and the amount of the credit. They receive the credit, an advance payment, and that payment is made directly to the insurance company, and then there is a true-up procedure when they file a tax return, much like a true-up of estimated taxes or a true-up of your withholding, and the way that it works is if they got too much of a credit up front they will owe some money back; if they got not enough, the Federal Government will owe them the true-up, so there is a true-up procedure that will be administered on the back end. Dr. DesJarlais. According to your July 2010 report, IRS has fallen short of providing adequate taxpayer service in important areas. Given the massive scope of ObamaCare, is it likely the IRS customer service is going to get worse rather than better? Mr. Shulman. I am not sure what the July 10 report is. Dr. DesJarlais. The Taxpayer Advocate report. Mr. Shulman. That is from the Taxpayer Advocate, who independently reports to Congress. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, the question still stands about customer service. How do you anticipate that is going to be handled? Mr. Shulman. We have had what I think is a very good track record of customer service with the resources we have been given, and I expect us to continue to deliver good customer service. Dr. DesJarlais. So an hour-plus wait in your opinion is good customer service when people actually need to talk to somebody who knows something about an issue? Mr. Shulman. We don't have an hour-plus wait on average. Dr. DesJarlais. What would you say the wait is? Mr. Shulman. It depends when you call. The wait can be as short as someone picks up the phone immediately and there is no wait, and it can be a lot longer. If people call at peak times, we tell them how long their wait is and they call back. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. From the National Taxpayer Association, for calls that require issues of expertise, the IRS track record is even worse. In March 2012 taxpayers calling IRS tax protection unit only reached IRS 11 percent of the time after an average wait time of an hour and six minutes. Mr. Shulman. This was a very specialized line that had just been set up. It was under-staffed at the very beginning. Once we became aware of the problems we put new people on, and the year we have averaged 90 percent, and so that is a very short point in time, and when we see issues we correct them. Dr. DesJarlais. I mean, I understand having pride in the agency that you oversee, but you can look in the camera and tell all the Americans watching that you feel the customer service within the IRS agency is good? Mr. Shulman. I can do it the other way around, which is, as I mentioned, the American Customer Satisfaction Index, which goes out and asks Americans how are their interactions with the IRS, is at its highest level ever at 73 percent. Dr. DesJarlais. That is not what the data says, and I think for the people watching they can probably make up their own minds. They don't have to take my opinion or yours. My time has expired and I would be happy to yield or recognize now the Ranking Member for five minutes. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. During one of our Subcommittee's hearings some business entities told us, Commissioner, that they were not sure which rules will apply to them and how they will comply with new requirements. I understand that some of these rules are still in progress, such as the rule on how to calculate full-time equivalent employees. Has the IRS engaged with businesses to ensure that programs and regulations are responsive to their concerns? And, number two, are there still misperceptions about IRS's role in implementing the health care reform bill? Mr. Shulman. To the second one, any time there is, you know, a major tax bill we need to educate people. Frankly, until you start actually implementing, that is when people really focus their mind and understand. With that said, we have been having extensive dialogue with the business community about the employer responsibility provisions of the law that we need to administer. As you mentioned, there's a couple things. One is there is a misperception that every business is subject to this. Ninety- six percent Of Americans' businesses have less than 50 employees, and those people are totally exempt from the coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act. Second is we have really focused our time trying to put guidance out to the business community, so there is this notion of you need to have 50 full-time equivalent employees in order for the provisions to kick in, and so there's obvious questions about, okay, what is a full-time equivalent? What if I have 49 and then it goes to 50? What if somebody went from full time to part time? We have tried just to be very responsive, and so we have a look-back that says you can look back a year and say what did it look like the last year, and then you get a safe harbor for the next year so that people aren't going to continually be having to wrestle with this. And so in the Affordable Care Act, but also really any time there is a major tax provision that is going to affect businesses, we have extensive dialogue with the business community, and what we try to do is make sure we put clear rules in place that will allow us to implement the law in the least burdensome manner possible to the business community. Mr. Cummings. Commissioner, as you mentioned earlier, the IRS will be involved in distributing billions of dollars in premium tax credits for people buying insurance in the exchange and administering the minimum essential coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, the IRS will be in the position of verifying information provided by third parties such as insurers. Can you tell us a little bit about your real time tax initiative and what is it and when does it begin? Mr. Shulman. So I guess two separate things. Yes, we are going to get information from insurance companies, information reporting very similar to what we get from brokerage companies today, banks, about interest information and home ownership and interest information from there. The real time initiative is really something apart and separate from this. That is basically a concept that I have laid out that says a lot of the tax system runs after the fact, meaning people file, we then later match returns and we send them letters; that we actually think we could have a much less burdensome system for the American people and one that actually led to better compliance, as well, if we could get information returns at the same time as the tax returns and any time there was any confusion clear it up. But the real time initiative that we have is something that is on a very different track. It is something that is just in the discussion phases, and we are getting lots of input, and it is really very separate from Affordable Care Act implementation. Mr. Cummings. Well, I am going to, just as my last question, the Chairman just asked you to look into the camera and talk about something. I am going to ask you to look into the camera, too, and that is: can you tell the American people why you feel comfortable that you are going to be able to do what is required of you, your agency, that is, under the Affordable Care Act? Do you feel comfortable, assuming that you get the resources, I'm sure. Mr. Shulman. Yes. No, we feel very comfortable that the part of the Affordable Care Act which is in the Internal Revenue Code which we are responsible for, that it will be implemented well, it will be implemented on time, and people have my personal commitment and the agency's broad commitment that we will do it in a way that minimizes burden on business and individuals and respects taxpayer rights and tries to facilitate, you know, a very good flow of information. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Dr. DesJarlais. [Presiding]. Thank you. For the third round, we would like to go back to the exchange rule a little bit. I can understand your confidence when essentially the IRS was given unprecedented power in this case to basically rewrite a rule and bypass Congress as it has in this case, so I guess maybe it would be easier to be confident if I knew that I didn't have to go through Congress any more, I can just kind of make it up as I go. But can you specify the exact language that says the subsidies go to exchanges created by the Federal Government? Mr. Shulman. So a couple things. First, on your comment, we exercised the rule-writing authority that is delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in every tax bill, and that is what we did. And there is actually a process in this Country that allows Congress to write the laws, we interpret them through rule, and implement them, and if there is a disagreement there is always the courts. So I don't think we have any special power under the Affordable Care Act that we don't have any time that we do rule-writing. Section 1321 talks about the Federal Government will stand in for the State at times. Section 1401 talks about---- Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Stop there. It says it may stand in, but it doesn't say it can issue tax credit, premium tax credits and it can't imply the tax against the employers. It doesn't say that, does it? Mr. Shulman. Section 1401, the second cite you are asking for, is saying that each exchange, and explicitly references the Federal exchange, shall report information to the IRS regarding the premium credits that it pays. And so I very much agree with you that there is some contradictory language. Our lawyers' job is to say, taken in totality---- Dr. DesJarlais. You are not agreeing with me. I don't think it is ambiguous, sir. I don't think it is ambiguous. I think it is very clear. I think you are trying to twist it because you have to cover a gross misinterpretation that the States would set up exchanges, so that right now, to save this law, they couldn't save it the proper way by going to conference. They couldn't do that because Scott Brown was coming in and it was all going to fall apart, so they had to pass an imperfect bill, as Nancy Pelosi shared with all of us those famous words, we have to pass the bill to see what is in it. They had to pass an imperfect bill, so now when the States didn't set up the exchanges we are having to go back around and try to find reasons for you to make this rule to include the Federal exchanges, which they did not intend to include. They wanted to force the States to do this. When the States didn't do it, now we have this problem that we are here talking about today. Who initiated the rule for the exchange rule? Did the rule initiate at IRS or at the Treasury? Mr. Shulman. The way our rule-writing works is that lawyers at the IRS look at statutes, come up with their best interpretation. I have to sign off on rules, as does the Assistant Secretary of Tax Policy. Dr. DesJarlais. How many times did you meet with the Treasury to discuss this rule? Mr. Shulman. Excuse me? Dr. DesJarlais. How many times did you meet with the Treasury to discuss this rule? Mr. Shulman. I meet with the Treasury Department of Tax Policy and their leadership on a regular basis. I have no idea how many times we actually talked about this rule. We talk about a lot of things. The tax code is very big and very complex. Dr. DesJarlais. It is, and it needs to be reformed. Was there any pressure from the Treasury Department to issue a rule that went beyond the statutory authorization? Mr. Shulman. I never felt any pressure on this rule. You know, my judgment on the rule was based on speaking with our lawyers and coming up with what we thought was the correct legal reading. Dr. DesJarlais. Have you ever done anything like this before? Mr. Shulman. Excuse me? Dr. DesJarlais. Have you ever done something like this before? Mr. Shulman. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service is continually consulting with the lawyers of the Internal Revenue Service and putting out regulations to interpret statutes. It is a major part of the job. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay, Mr. Shulman, and I know you are just trying to do your job. I will just close with one last question. The IRS will be responsible for collecting thousands of dollars from employers under the employer mandate. If the IRS makes mistakes, how can employers protect themselves from having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in error? Mr. Shulman. We have very laid-out, traditional administrative processes, and so, if we think somebody owes more taxes the first thing we do is try to work with them. If they disagree, they have, you know, very established appeals rights to supervisors. Then there is actually an administrative appeals process, our Office of Appeals, and then there is always the courts. And so there is a lot of avenues for people to disagree with us, and that is, you know, part of this Country. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. So you are saying that your plans for an appeal process for employers is already in place? Mr. Shulman. It will be, you know, plans that we have, you know. It is not plans; it is procedures that we have in place, long-established procedures to make sure the tax code is administered in a fair and even-handed manner. Dr. DesJarlais. So we don't really know how employers will be able to appeal their penalties at this point? Mr. Shulman. If a penalty is assessed, most people voluntarily pay. If they disagree, whoever made the determination for the assessment they can always talk with their supervisor, and those processes are well enunciated in the Internal Revenue Manual. They can then go to our appeals function, which is an independent function much like an administrative court inside the IRS. And if they still disagree after those two steps, they can go to the courts. Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Identity theft is a big problem, and information sharing in ObamaCare makes it worse. That is a report that just came out from the IRS today. Mr. Shulman. That is incorrect. Identity theft is a problem in this Country, but there has never been an allegation that there is a problem with information for identity theft coming from the IRS. Dr. DesJarlais. This is the text from the ruling issued today. In a new report to be issued Thursday, the Inspector General for the IRS says the tax thieves are stealing the identity of taxpayers and filing bogus returns on their behalf and collecting fraudulent refunds as a result. That is about $21 billion in fraudulent tax refunds over the next five years. Are you not aware of that? Mr. Shulman. I am aware of that report, but I want to be very clear: people get their purse stolen in a mall, someone has personal information, and then they file a return with us. Or someone has access to an employer database and they steal information and file a return with us. There are no allegations in that report or other places that information is being taken out of the IRS for identity theft purposes. Further, I have read that report. That report is very clear that the problems with identity theft mostly are systemic, and there is a variety of things that we have asked Congress to do to give us powers that haven't passed. Dr. DesJarlais. So you don't think it is possible that with all the new information you have got to collect regarding ObamaCare, that this problem could get worse? Mr. Shulman. I think connecting identity theft as a problem in this Country and the Affordable Care Act would be totally irresponsible to connect those two. Dr. DesJarlais. Interesting. All right. Well, I tell you what, I thank you very much for your testimony and your patience in going through three rounds of questioning. I would like to thank all of our witnesses today for taking time from their busy schedules to appear before us today. The Committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6370.073