Breaking: Obama Tells Companies They Can't Fire Anyone Unless IRS Gives Them Approval

[TemplarKormac]

For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.

This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.

(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer must employ on average at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2014. (Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during the previous year are not subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions.) The number of full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations for determining status as an applicable large employer.

(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on Febr. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.

Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-03082.pdf pp. 123-25

I tell you now: this is a pure act of desperation on the Obama Administration's part. Government has no right micromanaging the affairs of private businesses. So, is the Government telling you how to run your business?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hello? Is this thing on? Business owners? Liberals?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Is this insane or what? Obama has struck again with his pen extending the delay to the Obamacare employer mandate. What has been revealed is alarming. Obama has made it where companies MUST get "permission" to fire someone from the IRS! This should concern people greatly.

Here's the new rule:

To be eligible for the additional delay, the Obama administration says an employer “may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees” unless it can justify those reductions to the Internal Revenue Service.


Companies Must Justify Their Workforce Decisions Under Obama?s Latest Rewrite | CNS News

 

[Mac1958]

.

No way. I'd need to see proof of this.

.

 

[Mr. H.]

Holy fuck.

 

[RDD_1210]

.

No way. I'd need to see proof of this.

.

Don't hold your breath. Look who the OP is and what his "source" is. That's two strikes right off the bat.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.

Where do you guys get this shit?


On the other hand, if a company can prove that downsizing is necessary, i. e., that laying off employees was unavoidable, then there would be no fine. If a company remained compliant and offered insurance despite laying off workers, the IRS would not even need to be notified.

 

[chikenwing]

.

No way. I'd need to see proof of this.

.

Don't hold your breath. Look who the OP is and what his "source" is. That's two strikes right off the bat.

Well prove him wrong then sparky!! sounds like it would be simple to do!

 

[RDD_1210]

.

No way. I'd need to see proof of this.

.

Don't hold your breath. Look who the OP is and what his "source" is. That's two strikes right off the bat.

Well prove him wrong then sparky!! sounds like it would be simple to do!

I just did pops.

 

[Truthmatters]

just more right wing fucking lies

 

[Katzndogz]

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up. This is part of the democrat war on work.

 

[bripat9643]

I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.

Where do you guys get this shit?

Unfortunately for Obama, the law isn't written that way. Obama is making the law himself, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't give him such authority.

It's just one more example of Obama wiping his ass on the Constitution.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up. This is part of the democrat war on work.

No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.

 

[bripat9643]

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up. This is part of the democrat war on work.

No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.

If they don't make a profit, they go out of business, numskull.

 

[AquaAthena]

.

No way. I'd need to see proof of this.

.

Yes, WAY!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.

Where do you guys get this shit?

Unfortunately for Obama, the law isn't written that way. Obama is making the law himself, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't give him such authority.

It's just one more example of Obama wiping his ass on the Constitution.

????

Sounds like you are offering this up without any due diligence.

Obama does not "make laws himself" he is part of the process to get bills passed into law.

I know that's not what people think, but I saw it on TV when I was a kid.

Cool stuff.

 

[chikenwing]

Don't hold your breath. Look who the OP is and what his "source" is. That's two strikes right off the bat.

Well prove him wrong then sparky!! sounds like it would be simple to do!

I just did pops.

Hardly!! bashing a source??!!! with nothing to prove your point. Yep you nailed him!!

 

[Iceweasel]

No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.

There must be more to it than that. Otherwise they could simply invest in ads, equipment or supplies to avoid the penalty. Or maybe they didn't think of that?

 

[RDD_1210]

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up. This is part of the democrat war on work.

Remember when you acted like Obamacare caused your shitty 1 person business to close down. Yeah, I got a good laugh out of that too.

 

[AquaAthena]

The Democratic war on capitalism. Obama hates it and has the DOJ in his pocket to keep things corrupt.