Is the government verifying health insurance coverage for 2015 tax tax year? Let say you want to claim your brother but he doesn't have insurance, bad idea?
>>1058310
You can most likely lie about it. Chances are you won't be audited unless you're making 200k+ a year which I assume you're not since you're claiming your brother and he doesn't have health insurance
>>1058321
Safe assumption. Did so last year and no issue, but I have read that this year was supposed to be different. My guess is that the government is mostly talk and will not push the issue. The more we pay in penalties, the more the ACA looks like a failure and tax on the middle class.
If a dependent you claim didn't have insurance for that year, my understanding is that you will get "fined", which will just be a deduction from your tax refund.
My dad got all pissed at me for not getting health insurance when I was 18 because of this. It's like, fuck off, if you're going to claim me then its your responsibility that I'm insured, don't act like its my problem.
can't i'm a niggur
>>1058310
Yes.
This year your health insurer (if you had one) will issue you a 1095-B, which is your proof of insurance for the IRS. It tells the IRS exactly which months of 2015 you had coverage.
The penalty for not having health insurance in 2015 is either "2% of household income", at a maximum of "the total yearly premium for the national average price of a Bronze plan sold through the Marketplace", or "$325 per adult, $162.50 per child under 18" at a maximum of $975, whichever is higher.
If you only have health insurance for part of the year, you pay 1/12 of that year's penalty for each month you went without insurance.
The potential penalty more than doubles for the 2016 tax year.
sauce:
>https://www.healthcare.gov/fees/fee-for-not-being-covered/
>>1058953
The fine is effectively extra taxes, not a deduction from tax refund specifically
