Whistleblower Blog Archives - Page 11 of 35

Whistleblower Blog

The Most Significant Recent Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is the final section of my article. It discusses the most significant recent qui tam cases under the False Claims Act (as of December 2006).

B. Recent Significant Recoveries Under the False Claims Act:

1. Health Care Industry

a. Tenet Healthcare Corporation: $900 million

In June 2006, Justice Department announced that Tenet Healthcare Corporation, operator of the Nation’s second largest hospital chain, had agreed to pay the United States more than $900 million for alleged unlawful billing practices.

According to the government, the settlement amount, which was based on the company’s “ability to pay” (a phrase that suggests the government’s calculation of damages was higher), included more than $788 million to resolve claims arising from Tenet’s receipt of excessive “outlier” payments (payments that are intended to be limited to situations involving extraordinarily costly episodes of care, resulting from the hospitals’ inflating their charges substantially in excess of any increase in the costs associated with patient care and billing for services and supplies not provided to patients); more than $47 million to resolve claims that Tenet paid kickbacks to physicians to have Medicare patients referred to its facilities; and that Tenet billed Medicare for services that were ordered or referred by physicians with whom Tenet had an improper financial relationship; and more than $46 million to resolve claims that Tenet engaged in “upcoding.” The Justice Department acknowledged that “several” of the issues arose from lawsuits filed by whistleblowers under the qui tam provisions of the Act.

b. Serona, S.A: $704 million

The Swiss corporation, Serona, S.A., with its U.S. subsidiaries and related entities, agreed to pay $704 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations in October 2005. According to the Justice Department’s announcement, these allegations were in connection with illegal schemes to promote, market, and sell Serostim, an AIDS drug. The civil portion of the settlement was $567 million, and Serona also agreed to pay a $136.9 million criminal fine. This was the third largest health care fraud recovery by the government at the time.

According to the government, Serona knowingly submitted false and fraudulent claims for Serostim that were not eligible for reimbursement because they were for unnecessary and/or for off-label use of Serostim, and because the claims were for prescriptions induced by kickbacks. The investigation began in 2000 because a former Serona Lab’s employee filed a qui tam action, which was followed by other whistleblower suits in other states. This Serona settlement was reportedly the largest civil drug settlement to date.

(more…)

The Growing Importance of the Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is part 4 of my article on the False Claims Act. This part discusses the huge increase in federal dollars recovered in the past few years:

IV. Recent Recoveries and Other Developments In Qui Tam Litigation

A. An Explosion of Federal Dollars Recovered Since 1986, Under the False Claims Act

Over the past 20 years since the modern False Claims Act was established through the 1986 Amendments, the federal government’s recoveries of dollars have grown astronomically. The Department of Justice statistics reprinted in Appendix 2 tell the story:

In 1987, the government’s recoveries in qui tam cases totaled zero, presumably because the 1986 Amendments had just taken effect; and total recoveries under the False Claims Act were just $86 million. The following year, qui tam and other False Claims Act settlements and judgments began a steady climb upward, exceeding $200 million by 1989, and $300 million by 1991. By 1994, the government’s recoveries broke the $1 billion mark for the first time, with $380 million of that amount attributable to qui tam case recoveries alone.51

In 2000, the government recovered more than $1.5 billion, of which $1.2 billion was derived from qui tam actions. In 2001, the government recovered more than $1.7 billion, with almost $1.2 billion of that amount from qui tam cases. With the exception of 2004, in each year since 2000 the government has recovered more than a billion dollars per year under the False Claims Act, and qui tam actions were responsible for the lion’s share of those recoveries. For example, in 2003, government recoveries exceeded $2.2 billion, of which $1.4 billion derived from qui tam cases. Similarly, in 2005, of the government’s total recovery of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of that amount derived from qui tam cases.

(more…)

How the Modern False Claims Act Works in Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is part 3 of my article on how the False Claims Act works:

III. Brief Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories:

First, the Act makes liable any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a “false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government.27 “Claim” is broadly defined to include not only submissions made directly to the federal government, but also “any request or demand . . . for money or property” made to a “contractor, grantee, or other recipient” if the federal government provides any portion of the money or property in question.28

Second, the Act creates liability for using a “false record or statement” to obtain payment of a false claim. It imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the government.”29

Third, the False Claims Act imposes liability under a “conspiracy” provision. Any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid” is also liable under the Act.30
Fourth, since the government also can be defrauded when a private entity underpays or avoids paying an obligation to the government, the modern Act contains what is known as a “reverse false claim” provision. It creates liability for any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.”31 For example, a company that is obligated to pay royalties to the government under an oil lease can be held liable if it uses false records or statements to pay less than what it owes.

(more…)

History of the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is the second part of my article explaining the False Claims Act–it addresses the history of the Act:

II. Background of the False Claims Act
While the False Claims Act may be the best known qui tam statute, it is far from being the first. Qui tam actions date back to English law in the 13th and 14th Centuries. This tradition took root in the American colonies and, by 1789, states and the new federal government had authorized qui tam actions in various contexts.7
According to one writer, “[i]n the early years of the Nation, the qui tam mechanism served a need at a time when federal and state governments were fairly small and unable to devote significant resources to law enforcement. As the role of the Government expanded, the utility of private assistance in law enforcement did not diminish. If anything, changes in the role and size of Government created a greater role for this method of law enforcement.” 8

A. Birth of the False Claims Act
The Civil War prompted Congress to enact the original False Claims Act in 1863. As government spending on war materials increased, dishonest government contractors took advantage of opportunities to defraud the United States government. “Through haste, carelessness, or criminal collusion, the state and federal officers accepted almost every offer and paid almost any price for the commodities, regardless of character, quality, or quantity.”9 The original legislative proposal would have made contractors subject to martial law. A substitute bill provided for both civil and criminal penalties, and it authorized private individuals to sue on behalf of the United States. One senator explained how the qui tam provision of the Act was intended to work:

The effect of the [qui tam provision] is simply to hold out to a confederate a strong temptation to betray his co-conspirator, and bring him to justice. The bill offers, in short, a reward to the informer who comes into court and betrays his co-conspirator, if he be such; but it is not confined that class. . . . In short, sir, I have based the [qui tam provision] upon the old fashioned idea of holding out a temptation and setting a rogue to catch a rogue, which is the safest and most expeditious way I have ever discovered of bringing rogues to justice.10
The original Act provided for civil penalties of double the amount of damages sustained by the United States as a result of the false claim, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted.11 In the original Act, if a private citizen used the qui tam provision to file suit, the government had no right to intervene or control the litigation. The “relator” who was successful was entitled to receive one-half the amount of the final judgment in forfeiture and damages, with the United States receiving the other half.12

(more…)

Introduction to the False Claims Act and Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

I wrote this article for a seminar to explain the False Claims Act to those who may not know about it. I hope it may be useful to those who are interested in the Act. I have divided it into several sections–this is the first section, summarizing how the False Claims Act came to be in the time of Abraham Lincoln, and how it has evolved since then:

I. Introduction

Fraud is perhaps so pervasive and, therefore, costly to the Government due to a lack of deterrence. GAO concluded in its 1981 study that most fraud goes undetected due to the failure of Governmental agencies to effectively ensure accountability on the part of program recipients and Government contractors. The study states:

For those who are caught committing fraud, the chances of being prosecuted and eventually going to jail are slim . . . The sad truth is that crime against the Government often does pay.1

Fraud–and allegations of fraud–plague government spending at every level. Today, as the federal and state governments struggle to fund the billions of dollars spent annually on health care through Medicare and Medicaid; the Iraq war and reconstruction effort; other Department of Defense procurement; Hurricane Katrina and other disaster relief; and government grants and programs of every description, there is no shortage of opportunities for fraud against the public fisc.

The federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, has been the federal government’s “primary” weapon to recover losses from those who defraud it.2 The Act not only authorizes the government to pursue actions for treble damages and penalties, but also empowers and provides incentives to private citizens to file suit on the government’s behalf as “qui tam relators.”3 Over the past 20 years, recoveries for the federal government have grown dramatically since Congress amended the Act in 1986 to encourage greater use of the qui tam provisions, as part of a “coordinated effort of both the [g]overnment and the citizenry [to] decrease this wave of defrauding public funds.”4

The False Claims Act has unique procedural requirements that create many pitfalls for a lawyer prosecuting or defending cases under the Act. In addition, the law varies among the different federal circuits in ways that can determine the outcome of a False Claims Act case, depending on where it is filed.

——————————————————————————–

1 Legislative History to P.L. 99-562, False Claims Amendments Act of 1986, Senate Report No. 99-345 S. Rep. 99-345, 3, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5268 (hereinafter “Legislative History”) (quoting 1981 GAO Report to Congress, “Fraud in Government Programs: How Extensive is it? How Can it be Controlled?”).

2 Legislative History, at 2, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5266.

3 The term “qui tam” is derived from the Latin phrase, “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769 N.1 (2000).

4 Senate Report No. 99-345 S. Rep. 99-345, *2, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, **5267. Appendix 2 shows the growth in revenues, which is discussed in section IV infra.

(more…)

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

International Tax Evasion Targeted by IRS Move to Revamp Its Large Business Division

August 5, 2010
Michael Sullivan

To battle offshore tax abuses and other international tax fraud and tax evasion, the IRS has announced that it is “realigning” and renaming its Large and Mid-Size Business (LMSB) division. To reflect its new emphasis, it will known as the “Large Business and International” division (LB&I).

As more transactions cross international borders, and more corporations and wealthy individuals use offshore tax havens and foreign low tax jurisdictions to avoid their tax obligations, the IRS is smart to focus more of its enforcement efforts in this way.

Based on our experience with tax whistleblowers, it is clear that the IRS Whistleblower Program is already seeing increasing numbers of tax whistleblower claims dealing with offshore tax abuses and other international tax issues.

The new IRS international unit will include a “transfer pricing” director, as well as a chief economist, who will oversee the IRS’s economic positions pertaining to transfer pricing.

(Transfer pricing, in ordinary language, involves a multinational company’s reallocating income or expenses between related entities in different countries with different tax rates to reduce taxes, by artificially increasing or decreasing the price one business entity charges another for goods, services, or intangibles. Transfer pricing cases can be good IRS Whistleblower claims.)

This action is the latest IRS step to address international tax evasion, including the investigation of the misuse of offshore accounts and foreign entities by U.S. taxpayers. Last fall, the IRS introduced a Global High Wealth Industry unit to improve monitoring of tax compliance by high income individuals, and their related enterprises.

Time will tell if the IRS succeeds in its stated goal “to create a more centralized organization dedicated to improving international tax compliance.”

The IRS announcement is reprinted below:
(more…)

Offshore Tax Havens Face Increasing Scrutiny, With IRS Whistleblowers Assisting

August 4, 2010
Michael Sullivan

“Offshore” accounts are an increasing priority of IRS enforcement, aided by the new IRS Whistleblower Program. The Offshore World has changed and will never be the same again. The traditional tax haven assurance of secrecy and anonymity won’t necessarily work any more.

The US has concluded Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA’s) with a number of Offshore jurisdictions. Although the TIEA’s fall short of comprehensive Double Tax Treaties, they allow the IRS to obtain tax information about entities and accounts in Offshore jurisdictions under
(more…)

How Whistleblower Lawyers Work Alongside Government Lawyers In Successful Qui Tam Cases Under the False Claims Act

August 2, 2010
Michael Sullivan

When whistleblower attorneys bring a qui tam False Claims Act case, the most successful results usually occur when Government counsel and the whistleblower’s lawyers (Relator’s counsel) work together in what is known as the “public-private” partnership model.

This approach to qui tam cases allows the government to leverage its limited resources by calling on the resources provided by private attorneys. This is essentially a “joint prosecution effort, ” in which the government counsel and investigators can rely on Relator’s counsel at each stage,

–from the beginning of its investigation,

–to obtaining input for preparation of subpoenas for documentary evidence from the defendants,

–to review of evidence compiled by the government in response to subpoenas,

(more…)

New Rewards for Whistleblowers Reporting Bribery of Foreign Government Officials, Corporate Fraud In Foreign Government Contracts

July 21, 2010
Michael Sullivan

When the President signed the new financial reform bill into law today, new whistleblower provisions quietly took effect to battle corruption, bribery, and corporate fraud to obtain foreign government contracts.

This new law creates the new SEC whistleblower program that we have followed since its gestation after the Madoff scandal broke. The SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice share jurisdiction over a growing and increasingly important area of enforcement, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Bribery of foreign government officials in international business transactions, and false entries in books and records of those companies within the statute, are the targets of the FCPA. Whistleblowers whose information helps the SEC recover monetary sanctions from those corrupt entities in FCPA cases now have an enforceable right to a monetary award of 10-30%.

Based on the increasing number and size of these FCPA cases, the rewards to whistleblowers can be meaningful–as they must be to cause whistleblowers to come forward. Over the past decade, the government has pursued more and more FCPA cases, and some recover hundreds of millions of dollars.

Recall that, in late 2008, Siemens agreed to pay more than $1.6 billion to the United States and Germany, after allegedly paying “$1.4 billion in bribes to government officials in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas.” Announcing the guilty plea and settlement, the government described “a corporate culture in which bribery was tolerated and even rewarded at the highest levels of the company.”

The SEC obtained $350 million in disgorgement from that settlement, which was the largest FCPA settlement to date.

In announcing that 2008 recovery, the government explained that “there is no question that the Department has in recent years significantly increased its FCPA enforcement. From 2001 to 2004, the Department resolved or charged 17 FCPA cases. For the period of 2005 to 2008, that number is 42 resolutions, representing an increase of more than 200 percent within these four years as compared to the prior four-year period.”

With money scarce both at home and abroad, it is even more urgent to recoup funds lost to fraud. The new SEC whistleblower awards and Commodity Futures Trading Commission rewards should prompt more efficient law enforcement efforts to stop this fraud, just as the False Claims Act and the new IRS Whistleblower Program have shown is possible.

This corruption harms legitimate businesses, who cannot compete when corruption prevents a level playing field. This crime also causes damage to others, as the government explained in announcing the Siemens settlement. That transcript is reprinted below, and in part states:

For let there be no doubt that corruption is not a victimless offense. Corruption is not a gentlemen’s agreement where no one gets hurt. People do get hurt. And the people who are hurt the worst are often residents of the poorest countries on the face of the earth, especially where it occurs in the context of government infrastructure projects, contracts in which crucial development decisions are made, in which a country will live by those decisions for good or for bad for years down the road, and where those decisions are made using precious and scarce national resources.

To illustrate the types of corruption this new whistleblower law should bring to light more often, the government’s announcement of the 2008 Siemens settlement is reprinted below:
(more…)

Whistleblowers Reporting Derivatives Fraud? Whistleblower Incentives Must Be Paid by CFTC Under New Financial Reform Bill

July 18, 2010
Michael Sullivan

The new financial reform bill that awaits the President’s signature this week has something important for potential whistleblowers with knowledge of fraud in options, futures, derivatives and other financial products within the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The bill will modify the Commodity Exchange Act to provide whistleblower rewards and protections.

Similar to the new SEC whistleblower awards for persons who reports securities fraud, the rewards to whistleblowers will be available if the CFTC recovers monetary sanctions of more than $1 million because of the whistleblower’s information.

Like SEC whistleblowers, CFTC whistleblowers will have an enforceable right to 10-30% of what the CFTC recovers in substantial cases when the whistleblower has “voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the covered judicial or administrative action, or related action.” (Section 748 of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, reprinted below).

Crucial to the success of these new whistleblower programs, whistleblowers will know that they will receive at least 10% of the recovery in significant cases when the whistleblower meets the law’s criteria.

The history of the nation’s major whistleblower statute, the False Claims Act, shows that guarantees of meaningful rewards are the critical element in causing whistleblowers to report substantial fraud. Fraud recoveries increased dramatically once Congress amended the False Claims Act in 1986 to provide meaningful whistleblower rewards of 15-25% in cases in which the government intervenes.

The new IRS Whistleblower Program is proving the same point, as quality submissions have poured in now that a right to a meaningful whistleblower award exists.

Congress has set forth general criteria for the CFTC to determine the amount of the award within the 10-30% range. Factors that the CFTC will consider include:

“(I) the significance of the information provided by the whistleblower to the success of the covered judicial or administrative action;

”(II) the degree of assistance provided by the whistleblower and any legal representative of the whistleblower in a covered judicial or administrative action;

”(III) the programmatic interest of the Commission in deterring violations of the Act (including regulations under the Act) by making awards to whistleblowers who provide information that leads to the successful enforcement of such laws; and
”(IV) such additional relevant factors as the Commission may establish by rule or regulation”.
(more…)

New SEC Whistleblower Program Approved by Senate in Financial Reform Bill

July 17, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Since the SEC refused for years to heed Madoff whistleblower Harry Markopolis’ warnings that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, we have followed with great interest the efforts of those who sought to create the first meaningful SEC whistleblower program.

The Senate this week took an important step by authorizing a new SEC whistleblower program–one more potent than the SEC apparently wanted–as part of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

When the Madoff fiasco surfaced, Congress asked why the law failed to encourage SEC whistleblowers to come forward, in the same way the qui tam whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act have been so successful in rewarding whistleblowers for helping stop fraud against the government. Those same principles in the new IRS Whistleblower program have caused an explosion of valuable information presented by whistleblowers in exposing tax liability of many billions of dollars.

SEC leadership helped shape the tepid House version, which would have made rewards to whistleblowers wholly discretionary.

When we criticized the House version of the proposed SEC whistleblower rewards for that reason, staffers of the Senate Banking Committee contacted us to discuss what a meaningful whistleblower program should include, based on our experience with whistleblowers under the False Claims Act and IRS Whistleblower program. Our response was that, at minimum, a whistleblower with information about significant fraud must have a legally enforceable right to a meaningful reward.

Fortunately, the Senate version included such a right to an award of 10-30% in substantial cases, and the Senate view ultimately prevailed (see below text of whistleblower provisions in Section 922).

It remains to be seen how SEC leadership will respond. At this spring’s Offshore Alert Conference in Miami, an SEC official listened to his panelists describe how successful mandatory rewards have been in causing whistleblowers to come forward in False Claims Act cases and IRS Whistleblower claims, yet apparently failed to “get” that SEC whistleblowers need a similar incentive to come forward in the best cases.

In our experience in representing whistleblowers, persons with the most significant information will rarely come forward without an enforceable right to a meaningful reward. The SEC has not exactly fostered public confidence in its judgment in recent years. If it embraces whistleblowers as Congress has directed, the SEC will find that–like the IRS Whistleblower Office–it will receive better, and dramatically more, information about fraud within its jurisdiction.

The full text of section 922 regarding SEC whistleblowers is reprinted below:
(more…)

New IRS Procedures for Whistleblowers Should Encourage More Significant IRS Whistleblower Claims

July 1, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This morning’s Washington Post quotes me, among others, in criticizing one aspect of the new procedures for IRS whistleblowers recently published in the Internal Revenue Manual. That one glaring defect aside, the new IRM procedures are welcome news that should encourage more IRS whistleblowers to come forward.

Today’s Post article by David Hilzenrath on the IRS whistleblower procedures makes the following point, among others:

“There’s apparently an institutional resistance to rewarding whistleblowers that will take some time to dissipate,” said Michael A. Sullivan
(more…)

TARP Fraud and Other Violations Alleged by SEC Against Chairman of Major Mortgage Lender

June 16, 2010
Michael Sullivan

As we have written previously, the billions of “bailout” dollars to financial institutions through the TARP program inevitably would result in many fraud cases, including some by TARP whistleblowers.

Today, the SEC announced allegations of TARP fraud and securities fraud of more than $1.5 billion other violations against Lee B. Farkas, through his company Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (TBW).

According to the SEC, Farkas “sold more than $1.5 billion worth of fabricated or impaired mortgage loans and securities to Colonial Bank. Those loans and securities were falsely reported to the investing public as high-quality, liquid assets. Farkas also was responsible for a bogus equity investment that caused Colonial Bank to misrepresent that it had satisfied a prerequisite necessary to qualify for TARP funds. When Colonial Bank’s parent company – Colonial BancGroup, Inc. – issued a press release announcing it had obtained preliminary approval to receive $550 million in TARP funds, its stock price jumped 54 percent in the remaining two hours of trading, representing its largest one-day price increase since 1983.”

Perhaps the SEC is showing a new attitude after the Madoff debacle. Whistleblowers should soon be able to participate in the new SEC whistleblower program, which is part of the financial reform legislation now being hashed out in conference committee.

The SEC’s full release is reprinted below:
(more…)

New IRS Whistleblower Claim Procedures for Determining Awards to Whistleblowers Announced

June 16, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Today the long-awaited IRS Whistleblower Office procedures for determining awards to tax whistleblowers were announced in an update to the Internal Revenue Manual.

The new provisions for IRS Whistleblower claims address many details of how tax whistleblower claims will be handled. The full provisions are reprinted below:

Part 25. Special Topics
Chapter 2. Information and Whistleblower Awards
Section 2. Whistleblower Awards

25.2.2 Whistleblower Awards
25.2.2.1 Overview: Authority and Policy
25.2.2.2 General
25.2.2.3 Submission of Information for Award under Sections 7623(a) or (b)
25.2.2.4 Initial Review of the Form 211 by the Whistleblower Office
25.2.2.5 Grounds for Not Processing Claims for Award
25.2.2.6 Processing of the Form 211 7623(a) Claim for Award
25.2.2.7 Processing of the Form 211 7623(b) Claim for Award
25.2.2.8 Whistleblower Award Administrative Proceeding
25.2.2.9 Award Computation
25.2.2.10 Appeal Rights under section 7623(b)
25.2.2.11 Confidentiality of the Whistleblower
25.2.2.12 Funding Awards
25.2.2.13 Award Payment Procedures
25.2.2.14 Annual Report to Congress
Exhibit 25.2.2-1 1891 Letter
Exhibit 25.2.2-2 Rejection Letter – 1010 Letter
Exhibit 25.2.2-3 Acknowledgement Letter – Whistleblower Office
Exhibit 25.2.2-4 Debriefing Checksheet
Exhibit 25.2.2-5 Rejection Letter from the Whistleblower Office
Exhibit 25.2.2-6 Memorandum from Steven T. Miller, February 17, 2010
Exhibit 25.2.2-7 Sample Notice of Opportunity to Comment Letter
Exhibit 25.2.2-8 Sample Summary Award Report
Exhibit 25.2.2-9 Award Recommendation-Opportunity to Comment
Exhibit 25.2.2-10 Confidentiality Agreement
Exhibit 25.2.2-11 Sample Preliminary Award Report
Exhibit 25.2.2-12 Sample Determination Letter
Exhibit 25.2.2-13 Award Calculation Computation Guidelines (more…)

Offshore Tax Violations: Sen. Grassley Calls For Accounting of Use of UBS Information Provided by Tax Whistleblower

June 8, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Offshore tax evasion is a great priority for the IRS, and thus also the IRS Whistleblower Program.

Today, the leading advocate for robust whistleblower laws has called for the Treasury Department and the IRS to account for their use of information provided by the “UBS whistleblower,” Bradley Birkenfeld.

Sen. Chuck Grassley issued a press release today summarizing his letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman. Grassley commented on Swiss legislators’ move today to “unravel a U.S.-Swiss treaty that would allow for the disclosure of more client information to allow U.S. officials to review cases for potential enforcement of U.S. tax laws.”

“The action by Swiss legislators today to try to unravel an international treaty emphasizes the need for U.S. authorities to exhaust the information they have on U.S. taxpayers who use offshore accounts to evade taxes,” Grassley said. “Honest taxpayers deserve to know what’s happened with what could be very valuable leads, and if it’s nothing, they deserve to know why. It’s a matter of tax fairness and law enforcement. And the IRS shouldn’t wait for international agreements to fall into place when tax evaders can be identified through other appropriate tools.”

Grassley did not advocate for the UBS whistleblower’s release from federal prison, however, but focused on the government’s use of the information he provided. (See prior discussions of the UBS whistleblower’s case here).

Grassley, more than anyone, is responsible for passage of the December 2006 legislation that created the first meaningful IRS Whistleblower Program. The promising new IRS Whistleblower Program was inspired by the great successes of the nation’s primary whistleblower statute for exposing fraud, the False Claims Act.

Sen. Grassley’s announcement and letter today are reprinted below:
(more…)