In its ruling last week on the national health care law , the Supreme Court found that penalties the law places on people who do n't buy health insurance count as a tax protected by the Constitution . The Obama administration had argued that the fees should be considered a penalty . But the government also argued that the individual mandate can be viewed as constitutional under Congress ' powers of taxation . The high court rejected the `` penalty '' argument . `` The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance ; the payment is not limited to willful violations , as penalties for unlawful acts often are ; and the payment is collected solely by the ( Internal Revenue Service ) through the normal means of taxation , '' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision . The court noted that the law calls for no other punishments for refusal to buy health insurance . `` Indeed , it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance , '' the decision said , citing figures from the Congressional Budget Office . `` We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful . '' What the ruling means to you . But on the taxation argument , the court agreed . The Constitution allows Congress to tax and spend , giving the federal government `` considerable influence even in areas where it can not directly regulate , '' the decision said . The mandate `` looks like a tax in many respects , '' Roberts wrote . The money is to be paid by people when they file their tax returns and does not apply to those who pay no federal income taxes ; the amount someone owes `` is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income , number of dependents , and joint filing status , '' and the `` requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS . '' The high court overturned a unanimous decision by the 11th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals that the mandate did not impose a tax . The Supreme Court also ruled that it could proceed with considering the constitutionality of the tax despite the Anti-Injunction Act , which dates back 145 years . The law said lawsuits ca n't be used to prevent taxing , only to get refunded for taxes already paid . The high court said whether something is a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act is Congress ' decision -- and since Congress designated the mandate as including a penalty rather than a tax , the law did not apply in this case . `` It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute , so it makes sense to be guided by Congress 's choice of label on that question . That choice does not , however , control whether an exaction is within Congress 's constitutional power to tax . '' The court emphasized that it was not weighing in on whether the mandate is a good idea . `` Because the Constitution permits such a tax , it is not our role to forbid it , or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness , '' the decision said . How are you affected by the ruling ? Share with us on CNN iReport .
The Supreme Court rejected arguments that the individual mandate involves a `` penalty '' The mandate `` looks like a tax in many respects , '' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote . The Obama administration argued that it 's a penalty but also could be viewed as a tax . In his majority opinion for the court, Roberts said Congress has not provided any evidence to support its contention that the mandate is an excise tax.