Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Monday, October 07, 2013

JW Files Suit On behalf Of Kawa Orthodontics Against Treasury & IRS To Overturn Delay Of Obamacare Employer Mandate

Florida Lawsuit Argues Mandate Delay Exceeds Obama Administration’s Statutory Authority and is Arbitrary, Capricious, Contrary to Law, and Otherwise Unlawful.

Seeks an Injunction Prohibiting Employer Mandate Delay

(Washington, DC)
– Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Larry Kawa of Kawa Orthodontics against the U.S. Department of Treasury, Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew, the Internal Revenue Service and IRS Acting Director Daniel Werfel challenging the Obama administration’s decision to delay the enactment of the so-called “employer mandate” provision of the Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as Obamacare (Kawa Orthodontics, LLP vs. Jack Lew, et al., (No. 9:13-cv-80990)).

Judicial Watch Weekly Update
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Boca Raton based employer Kawa Orthodontics LLP, argues that the delay of the employer mandate “exceeded [the Obama administration’s] statutory authority, is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and is otherwise unlawful.”

The employer mandate, which subjects certain large employers to tax penalties if they do not offer “affordable,” “minimum essential” health insurance coverage to their employees, is “one of the pillars” of Obamacare. By law, the mandate was required to take effect January 1, 2014. On July 2, 2013, however, the Obama administration officially postponed the mandate, causing Kawa Orthodontics to lose the value of its substantial efforts to prepare for the controversial provision taking effect beginning next year:

“[Kawa Orthodontics] expended substantial time and resources, including money spent on legal fees and other costs, in preparation for the ‘employer mandate’ taking effect on January 1, 2014….[The company] would not have expended its time and resources and incurred these anticipatory costs in 2013 if the mandate had not been scheduled to take effect until 2015, but instead would have spent its time, resources, and money on other priorities.”

More

No comments: