{"title":"联邦创建交易所的税收抵免:来自立法程序失败理论的教训","authors":"M. Seidenfeld","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2550525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Essay uses the “legislative process failure theory of statutory interpretation” to analyze whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes tax subsidies for individuals who enroll in health care plans through federally created American Health Benefit Exchanges. The Supreme Court recently granted cert. on this question, and a negative resolution by the Court could threaten the viability of the entire Act. The legislative process failure theory asserts that courts should use contextual evidence, including legislative history, of legislators’ likely understanding of a statute to resolve statutory meaning when there is reason to believe that a technical Textualist inquiry into the objective meaning leads to a different interpretation from that likely understanding and Congress was not aware of this potential difference. Applied to the question of the ACA subsidies on federally created exchanges, this analysis relies on the first-blush impression that federally created exchanges will substitute in all respects for state established ones, together with the absolute lack of any discussion of a contrary meaning in the legislative history or popular explanations of the Act, to conclude that the Court should interpret the ACA to authorize subsidies on federally created exchanges.","PeriodicalId":133015,"journal":{"name":"Florida State University Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","volume":"121 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tax Credits on Federally Created Exchanges: Lessons from a Legislative Process Failure Theory of Statutory Interpretation\",\"authors\":\"M. Seidenfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2550525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Essay uses the “legislative process failure theory of statutory interpretation” to analyze whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes tax subsidies for individuals who enroll in health care plans through federally created American Health Benefit Exchanges. The Supreme Court recently granted cert. on this question, and a negative resolution by the Court could threaten the viability of the entire Act. The legislative process failure theory asserts that courts should use contextual evidence, including legislative history, of legislators’ likely understanding of a statute to resolve statutory meaning when there is reason to believe that a technical Textualist inquiry into the objective meaning leads to a different interpretation from that likely understanding and Congress was not aware of this potential difference. Applied to the question of the ACA subsidies on federally created exchanges, this analysis relies on the first-blush impression that federally created exchanges will substitute in all respects for state established ones, together with the absolute lack of any discussion of a contrary meaning in the legislative history or popular explanations of the Act, to conclude that the Court should interpret the ACA to authorize subsidies on federally created exchanges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":133015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Florida State University Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"121 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Florida State University Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2550525\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Florida State University Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2550525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文运用“法定解释的立法程序失败理论”来分析《平价医疗法案》是否授权通过联邦政府创建的美国健康福利交易所(American health Benefit Exchanges)为参加医疗保健计划的个人提供税收补贴。最高法院最近对这个问题作出了肯定,法院的否定决议可能会威胁到整个法案的可行性。立法程序失败理论主张,当有理由相信技术文本主义者对客观意义的探究会导致与可能的理解不同的解释,而国会没有意识到这种潜在的差异时,法院应该使用上下文证据,包括立法历史,即立法者对法规的可能理解来解决法定意义。适用于ACA对联邦创建的交易所的补贴问题,这种分析依赖于第一印象,即联邦创建的交易所将在所有方面取代州建立的交易所,同时绝对缺乏对立法历史中相反含义的讨论或对该法案的流行解释,从而得出结论,法院应该解释ACA以授权对联邦创建的交易所的补贴。
Tax Credits on Federally Created Exchanges: Lessons from a Legislative Process Failure Theory of Statutory Interpretation
This Essay uses the “legislative process failure theory of statutory interpretation” to analyze whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes tax subsidies for individuals who enroll in health care plans through federally created American Health Benefit Exchanges. The Supreme Court recently granted cert. on this question, and a negative resolution by the Court could threaten the viability of the entire Act. The legislative process failure theory asserts that courts should use contextual evidence, including legislative history, of legislators’ likely understanding of a statute to resolve statutory meaning when there is reason to believe that a technical Textualist inquiry into the objective meaning leads to a different interpretation from that likely understanding and Congress was not aware of this potential difference. Applied to the question of the ACA subsidies on federally created exchanges, this analysis relies on the first-blush impression that federally created exchanges will substitute in all respects for state established ones, together with the absolute lack of any discussion of a contrary meaning in the legislative history or popular explanations of the Act, to conclude that the Court should interpret the ACA to authorize subsidies on federally created exchanges.