RitaB

It's a horrible mess, and I'm surprised when I understand anything about it.

Hey, I'm not greedy. Left you some room there. I can't think past two siblings. Are you kidding?

Yes, Rita L is correct, right above the tiebreaker rules: "If they cannot agree who will claim the child as a qualifying child, and more than one person actually claims tax benefits using the same child, the tie-breaker rules (explained below) apply."

I think you are correct. Check out the thread Affordability Exemption Test started by HV Ken.

This is a beautiful thing. Tom and Judy, you are both awesome.

This is going to be just like EIC. When people figure out how to cheat, they will cheat. This is a hardship for ME. What do I get? A big ole plate of nuttin, honey.

It does make sense to use the subsidy for the exact reason you said: you have to consider the bottom line cost to determine affordability. I did not realize that at first and thought, "What the crap? The very people we (they) are coercing into getting insurance are going to escape the penalty if they don't buy insurance." And when I say "buy" insurance, I mean "get" insurance because the rest of us are paying for it and our own, too.

At least they knew to make accountants handle this instead of Philadelphia lawyers. /s

I signed up for the Psych marathon on USA Network. May follow it up with concentrating on the back of my eyelids. Good for you, Bob. The janitor life agrees with you, apparently.

Have I told you I'm glad I haven't been studying this $%^& for eighteen months?

Yeah, well, they are probably lying. (About the smoke part.)

I think if income is between 100% - 400% of poverty level, it's going to be affordable, unless everybody smokes like a freight train. Pretty much. Yes.

T OK, I see it in the "tip" under the chart, p.6. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Do you have an answer or just wondered if I knew to use gross income? Anyhow I'm hating having ACA questions over here all lonely and nobody looking and sniff, sniff.

Bob, you know I love you. But I have been thinking all this time: "The spirit of the law is to help parents whose spouse left in the first half of the year." And I do realize my thoughts are worth exactly zero, what the law was INTENDED to do means exactly zero, and I do see your point as well.

Sorry, my bad. Gross income, clergy W-2 box 1, Groundhog Day 2015. I need more time to edit than I originally thought, apparently.

I would think that an self-employed non-dependent making $6,000 would be exempt from ACA penalty because he's under the filing threshold for ACA purposes. Agree? Yes, I know he has a filing requirement and owes tax.

They HAVE hired me to do it. And they give me the information late. Every. Single. Time. They don't think my fees are bad. But the problem is they don't even care about the penalties. People like this can never run a business. So much better off working for someone else who has some self-discipline.

Yes, you should do what I did and believe all that stupid crap he said. Haha. Not really. Well maybe.

Hey, just send me a personal message if I don't answer. I will eventually see the red notification up there. Maybe.

No. Not a dependent. Correct, a dependent does not answer the question on Line 61. Discovered that today.

Pretend that strength is spelled correctly.

And I hold that dividend check I discovered for ransom.

I can't get over the stupid choices business owners make. I have three right now who are behind on remitting sales tax. Their monthly penalties are more than my accounting fees. They won't be in business long.

No, but she will. Thank you, kind sir.