How Two Courts of Appeals Applied the Same Law to Reach Opposite Conclusions About the Affordable Care Act

By | Florida Appellate Review | July 30, 2014
Credit: Flickr user 401(K) 2013

Last week, two federal courts of appeals–the 4th Circuit and D.C. Circuit–considered whether the IRS reasonably interpreted the Affordable Care Act as allowing the IRS to give tax credits to taxpayers that purchase health insurance through an exchange set up by the federal government.

The Affordable Care Act: Charting the Future of the Premium Subsidies (and Employer Penalties): Halbig V. Burwell and King V. Burwell

The Affordable Care Act: Charting the Future of the Premium Subsidies (and Employer Penalties): Halbig V. Burwell and King V. Burwell

On July 22, 2014, two federal appellate courts issued conflicting decisions, within hours of each other, regarding the IRS final rule published on May 23, 2012 (the “IRS Rule”), intended to implement the exchange-related tax credit provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or the “Act”).

Charting the Future of Premium Subsidies Under the Affordable Care Act: Halbig V. Burwell and King V. Burwell

On July 22, 2014, two federal appellate courts issued conflicting decisions, within hours of each other, regarding the IRS final rule published on May 23, 2012 (the “IRS Rule”), intended to implement the exchange-related tax credit provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or the “Act”).