W-2 will not be able to escape the fines. They will just take it out of your tax return. For those of US who pay their own taxes quarterly, check it...
If there’s no tax refund, where else can the IRS get its $95? Typically, the IRS does have a number of steps by which to recoup unpaid taxes. It can garnish your wages, for example, or, in rare cases, seize property. But with the health mandate, the law’s drafters specifically barred the agency from any of those more aggressive tactics.
“In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section,” Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act reads, “Such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.”
If a penalty does not come out of a refund, it does not fully disappear. Instead, it gets carried over to next year’s tax filings and held on the filer’s account. The Internal Revenue Service is also allowed to charge interest on any unpaid tax penalty (More on that in the very thrilling Sec. 6601of the Internal Revenue Service Code). The rate currently hovers around 3 percent.
So the tax penalties accumulate, and the interest goes up and up. But even in an extreme example, where someone doesn’t pay the health law’s penalties for decades, the powers that the Internal Revenue Service has to collect the unpaid fines don’t change.
“The IRS remains very clearly limited in its ability to collect the penalty,” Livingston says, “And the accumulation over time does not change those legal limitations.”
And here it is from section 1501of the ACA
(2) Special rules.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
``(A) Waiver of criminal penalties.--In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty
imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be
subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with
respect to such failure.
``( Limitations on liens and levies.--The
Secretary shall not--
``(i) file notice of lien with respect to any
property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to
pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
``(ii) levy on any such property with respect
to such failure.''.
Although it is likely that within a year I will be insured through marriage, my lady's work coverage, I will still defy this, however briefly not to mention it is yet unknown whether the coverage I will obtain through her work will be sufficient enough coverage to please the messiah and his goons. Do not comply. Given this information, why not? For now, I'm standing with the questioner from the WaPo article.
EDIT: I tried to trick the text editor by putting a space between one the apostrophes and the B to avoid the smiley face in the law quote but it didn't work. Ignore the face. It is simply "sub-section B"
Edited by F3SS, 08 August 2013 - 08:18 PM.