Planned Giving - Define Your Legacy and Make a Difference!

Planned Giving

With thoughtful planning, anyone can provide for their financial goals and help Jacksonville University continue to be an extraordinary place to learn. Planning may allow you to:
  • Benefit family and friends while providing for the university that is important to you
  • Leave a personal legacy that reflects your values and beliefs
  • Take advantage of possible tax benefits
  • Receive the satisfaction of giving back in a meaningful way
Legacy gifts take many forms, and reasons to include JU in one's financial and estate plan are as unique as each individual, but they share a single purpose: to ensure that Jacksonville University will prosper in the future.

We appreciate the continued commitment of alumni and friends to JU students and thank them for all they do to make our good work possible. We would be honored to assist you, too. JU's success depends on your vision and generosity.
How to Make a Difference at JU
You want to make a difference at JU, but don't know where to begin? Identify your goals and review possible strategies to achieve them.
Plan Your Gift At Any Age
Simple Planning Tips to protect your family and support JU too!


Contact Us
Maria Pellegrino-Yokitis, JD
Director of Major Gifts and Planned Giving
Jacksonville University
2800 University Blvd. N.
Jacksonville, FL 32211
(904) 256-7928
Tax ID: 59-0624412


Missin Video
Plan Your Will
Request a Wills Guide
Sign up for eNewsletter
Heritage Society
Text Resize
Subsribe to RSS Feed

Saturday July 4, 2015

Washington News

Washington Hotline

Premium Tax Credit Approved

In a 6-3 decision published on June 25, the Supreme Court upheld the Premium Tax Credit Plan under the Affordable Care Act. The King v. Burwell decision considered the question, “Does the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provide a premium tax credit for both federal and state exchanges?”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The plaintiffs in the case pointed to Sec. 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, which states that exchanges are qualified if “established by the State.” Some states did create their own healthcare exchanges, but many states relied on the Federal Government site to provide their exchange.

The Department of Treasury published a regulation under Sec. 36B. This regulation interpreted the ACA provision to allow premium tax credits for both the state and federal exchanges.

Several lower courts attempted to interpret the ACA language and determine whether or not Congress intended “State” to mean “State and Federal.”

Chief Justice Roberts determined that language was ambiguous when the complete statute was considered. He noted, “The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.”

Because rejecting the premium tax credits for the federal exchange “would destabilize the individual insurance market and any state with a federal exchange, and likely create the very death spirals that Congress designed the act to avoid,” Roberts concluded that the act covered both federal and state exchanges.

Justice Scalia read a very strong dissent when the decision was released. He noted “under all the usual rules of interpretation” there would be no question but that the language specifically included only the state exchanges as qualified for the premium tax credit. He claimed the majority interpreted the “exchange established by the State” to also include “exchange not established by the State.”

Referring to the term for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), he drew a laugh from the audience by quipping, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

Washington Comments on Premium Tax Credit

Following the Supreme Court decision upholding the premium tax credit for both state and federal healthcare exchanges, members of both parties in Washington offered opinions on the case.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had initially approved the regulation that concluded both federal and state exchanges qualified for the premium tax credit. He commented, “The Affordable Care Act is working. Since the law was passed, more than 16 million uninsured people have gained health coverage, and evidence shows that families and businesses are benefitting from improved affordability, access and quality of care.”

House Ways and Means Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) has expressed concerns about ACA. He responded, “We need a system that makes coverage more affordable and puts patients – not Washington – in charge of healthcare decisions.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is co-author of a proposed new healthcare plan that is titled the “Patient Care Act.” He stated, “Moving forward, we will continue to seek input on our legislative proposal – the Patient Care Act – and use every opportunity available to give both states and patients more freedom and flexibility. We will continue to work toward real reform that lowers costs and helps Americans access high quality healthcare.”

The Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee is Ron Wyden (D-OR). He commented, “The ACA’s core purpose – which has been clear from the outset – is to help as many people as possible get affordable, high-quality health insurance. Tax credits are key to making that work. And today the court has affirmed Congress and the majority opinion of Americans.”

Editor’s Note: Your editor understands that many Americans hold strong opinions on the Affordable Care Act. This summary of the Supreme Court case and responses by Washington officials is offered as an educational service to our readers.

Published June 26, 2015
Subsribe to RSS Feed

Previous Articles

Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act of 2015

Identity Fraud Security Summit

Safeguarding Tax Records during Hurricane Season

IRS Progress on Identity Theft

Highway Bill Extended to July 31