ESCAPE VELOCITY

1 - @2 1. Do you think so? In that case, cosmetic medical procedures that are not surgery do not attract the tax - right? Wherever you put the implicit parentheses that problem remains. As long as the word AND is used rather than OR, the tax only applies (according to the wording) when the procedure in question is surgical. Whether it applies only to elective surgery is another matter again. I suppose the drafter is assuming that all cosmetic procedures are elective by definition, so he doesn't need to be clear. There has to be some territory left for lawyers to wrangle over forever, yes?

2 - 1. It's (cosmetic(surgery and medical procedure)), not (cosmetic surgery) and (medical procedure). Legalese would be much less ambiguous if the parens were an explicit requirement.

2. It's not the rule that's ex post facto, but the enforcement. However, there is a legal precedent of laws being made retroactive without being considered to be ex post facto. Most of them give things out instead of taking things, but it's been done before. Plus, the prohibition is on Congress to avoid ex post facto in their initial intent. The Senate passed its bill before January 1, so I'm not sure that it's considered to be ex post facto if the House waits on passing the same bill unaltered, or the President waits to sign it. As long as the rule originates before the date specified, I think it's unconstitutional. Realistically, I don't think that they'll *actually* go back and demand payment, they'll probably just start requiring hospitals and clinics to charge the amount like a sales tax at some point once they have the system set up.

3. I think it'll be moot anyway, as this whole section is supposed to change in the reconciliation bill. Of course, I haven't read the most recent House version of that bill, so I won't know what's actually there until I look. :)

3 - The date does result in ex post facto, and, is present so that when you file your tax returns on April 15, 2011, you're liable for the taxes for the entire 2010 tax year!

4 - Good catch Nathan... Very interesting.

Here's what may be a more up-to-date bill for you. This one is 2400 pages!

{ Link }

But let me correct something you wrote. This isn't Section 500B of HR 3590, it's actually Section 9017 which then gives the amended wording of Subtitle D of Internal Revenue Code of 1986 Chapter 49, Section 500B. (Guess it's like joined Notes views? ) You have to go a few lines down to Section 500B.b to get the definition of ‘cosmetic surgery and medical procedure’ (yes, it's a single term apparently). Section 500B.b.2 states that this is not taxed if it is "arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease." So your slasher-rapist scenario wouldn't mean that you have to pay an additional 5% tax.

And, yes, in the 2400 page bill, the January 1, 2010 date is still in the wording. I would think that does make it an ex post facto law with the caveat that most ex post facto law issues normally are meant for criminal acts and possibly not for taxation. But I agree that it's at the very least an ex post facto tax!

But then we have just went over all of this above and we get to Section 10907 of HR3590 and we read:

"(a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of, and amendments made by, section 9017 of this Act are hereby deemed null, void, and of no effect."

Now they're going to tax indoor tanning effective July 1, 2010 instead of cosmetic procedures.

OK, who's ready to go into business with me - OUTDOOR Tanning FTW!!!

5 - @2 & 3 - Please note: it's perfectly possible that I'm looking at an outdated version of the bill. That's why I included the link.