Doesn't the federal government have jurisdiction over the IRS?

[Skink]

seems like this ruling should easily be overturned.

[former9thward]

1. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department.

President Obama has appoints the Treasury Secretary and has control of it.

[Swede Atlanta]

2. What's your point?

I'm trying to understand your question? Yes the IRS is part of the Executive Branch and is part of the Treasury Department. But what is the question?

[jeff47]

3. The IRS, like everyone else, has to follow the law.

The DC court ruled that the law does not allow them to give the subsidies for ACA plans on the federal exchange.

The IRS or executive branch isn't allowed to ignore the law. So if this was the final say, a fix would have to come from Congress. Normally, it would be a bill that sails through on a quick vote, but the Republicans are currently insane.

However, this isn't the final say on the law, and the DC ruling broke several SCOTUS precedents. It is extremely likely to be overturned by the full DC court.

[Skink]

4. the DC ruling makes no sense

unless the aca was deliberately sabotaged by congress.

[jeff47]

7. It was handled as if the one sentence was the entire law. (nt)

[Bandit]

5. Apparently the IRS can just create a regulation that changes the wording of the LAW

and no one will do a thing about it.. I'm talking about the LAW regarding 501 (c) (4). Changing one word, "exclusively" to "primarily" completely changes the meaning of the LAW.

[jeff47]

6. Sometimes, it's not really possible to enforce the law as written.

How do you actually enforce "exclusively"? Because there are going to be people who benefit from the organization, but not because of what it is supposed to do.

For example, people are paid by the 501c4 group. They benefit, because they get a salary. And it has nothing to do with increasing "social welfare".

[Bandit]

8. If that were the case it would need to go back to Congress to rewrite the Law.

I don't believe it is either right or legal to just rewrite the law and call it a regulation. The two words have completely different meanings and therefore chnge the meaning and intent of the Law as written. If an entity is practicing social welfare and you donate money to that entity, it really doesn't matter that people from that entity get paid a salary, it is still a social welfare entity. I don't buy your argument although it does make me think.

[jeff47]

9. Congress also has the ability to overrule the regulation.

The Executive branch says "We can't really do it as written, so we're doing this".
Congress has the option to pass a new law to either clarify the original intent, or to overrule the executive branch's plan.

Your plan of "Congress has to rewrite it" means the executive branch ignores the law completely until Congress rewrites it. This way, at least the apparent intent is enforced.