Whistleblower Blog Archives - Page 6 of 35

Whistleblower Blog

Long-Awaited IRS Whistleblower Rule “Fix” Is Released for Comment

January 14, 2011
Michael Sullivan

We have written previously about Senator Grassley’s pointed criticisms of aspects of the IRS whistleblower rules proposed in June 2010. The IRS’s delay in finalizing those rules is a principal reason why the IRS has not yet paid whistleblowers who have come forward since the December 2006 creation of the new IRS Whistleblower Program.

Today, the IRS took a large step to correct one major flaw that Grassley urged be corrected: re-writing a bizarre rule that would deny rewards to valuable whistleblowers who prevent improper refunds, or reduce a credit balance by a taxpayer. From what we can tell, that nonsensical rule was not the creation of the IRS Whistleblower Office, but of others within the IRS.

The IRS today announced a new IRS whistleblower rule to correct that anomaly, to be published for comment in the Federal Register.

Specifically, in a June 21, 2010 letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, Grassley challenged the IRS to write a sensible rule to correct this result:

In addition to the IRS posting the new [Internal Revenue Manual] provisions without public comment, there are many substantive concerns within the IRM. For example, the new definition of “collected proceeds” is particularly troubling because it seems to limit the payment of awards to whistleblowers only in those instances where the IRS receives cash payment from a taxpayer. . . . The denial of a whistleblower award where the whistleblower’s information leads to the denial of a claim for refund seems to create a perverse incentive for the whistleblower to wait until the IRS has paid an improper refund. In addition, the IRM says that satisfaction of a taxpayer’s liabilities by reducing a credit balance is not within the scope of collected proceeds so the whistleblower would receive no award.

The new proposed rule attempts at least a partial fix. It provides that rewards may now be paid on “amounts collected prior to receipt of the information if the information provided results in the denial of a claim for refund that otherwise would have been paid; and a reduction of an overpayment credit balance used to satisfy a tax liability incurred because of the information provided.”

Today’s proposed rule does nothing to address Grassley’s other criticisms of the June 2010 proposed rules.
(more…)

Activities of IRS Large Business and International Division Earn Its Commissioner Recognition As “Tax Person of the Year”

January 4, 2011
Michael Sullivan

Citing many developments in the IRS Large Business and International Division in 2010, Tax Analysts this week named IRS LB&I Commissioner Heather Maloy as its “Tax Person of the Year.”

Among those developments that we have followed previously are the international focus of the restructured LB&I division (formerly known as the Large and Mid-Size Business Division (LMSB)), and the creation of the new Global High Wealth Industry Group within LB&I. That group within LB&I is already is working some very significant IRS Whistleblower cases.

Also mentioned by Tax Notes was one of my favorite IRS professionals who assisted the new IRS Whistleblower Program in its infancy, Stuart Mann:
(more…)

New SEC Whistleblower Program to Benefit from SEC’s Appointment of New Enforcement Official?

December 17, 2010
Michael Sullivan

The SEC has just announced that current senior advisor to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, Stephen L. Cohen, has been named an Associate Director of the Division of Enforcement.

We hope this is good news for the nascent SEC Whistleblower Program. The SEC recently announced that its delaying creation of an SEC Whistleblower Office for budget reasons.

Steve Cohen has advised Chairman Schapiro on a number of issues including the SEC Whistleblower program, which I have discussed with him briefly earlier this year.

Coincidentally, the announcement came on yesterday’s deadline for comments on the SEC’s proposed rules for SEC whistleblowers, which must be substantially revamped so as not to defeat Congress’ purpose by discouraging meaningful whistleblowers from coming forward. We have submitted our own comments to the SEC on its proposed whistleblower rules, and will discuss later others’ comments here. See our comments

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

IRS Whistleblower Claims Reporting Tax Evasion and “Overlooked” Returns

December 12, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Tax whistleblowers using the new IRS Whistleblower Program have reported many instances of tax evasion involving domestic and foreign corporations, partnerships, and trusts, in addition to abusive offshore transactions about which we have written previously. These tax whistleblowers will allow the IRS to reduce the more than $300 billion “tax gap”–the difference between what tax cheats owe, but refuse to pay.

Tax evasion generally entails taxpayers understating taxes in the returns they file. In many cases evasion also entails taxpayers failing to file returns, especially information returns (as opposed to tax returns).

For example, partnership returns (Form 1065) are information returns and as such do not report tax payable. Cases of partnership tax evasion sometimes arise where filing Form 1065 is “overlooked.” In many of these cases, the partners continue to file their own income tax returns, which typically understate taxable income and tax payable, as there are no K-1’s to report.

Another partnership information return frequently overlooked is Form 8275. This form should generally be filed where partners have made partnership contributions, and received partnership distributions, within a two year period. Failing to file 8275’s typically results in an underpayment of tax where the disguised sale rules operate to treat the contribution and distribution as a sale.

Cancellation Of Debt (“COD”) is another area where non-filing of information returns (generally Form 1099-C) often results in an underpayment of tax, particularly in relation to non-institutional debt.

The problem of overlooked returns is not limited to income tax. Another return that is frequently overlooked is Form 709. This form should be filed by individuals who gift property that does not qualify for exclusion from gift tax.

On the international side, taxpayer interests in foreign companies should often be information reported on Form 5471. Where taxpayers have interests in foreign companies that hold interests in other foreign companies, multiple 5471’s may need to be filed to reflect second tier or higher tier interests. Failing to file 5471’s typically results in an underpayment of tax where foreign company income is required to be included in US income, for example under the Subpart F rules.
(more…)

Special: Article Explaining the 2010 False Claims Act and State False Claims Acts

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Three years ago, our whistleblower lawyer blog presented an in-depth article discussing the nation’s major whistleblower law, the False Claims Act, and the wave of new state False Claims Acts.

Since then in 2009-2010, Congress has amended the False Claims Act three times to remove obstacles created by courts, which had limited the law’s effectiveness. To reflect those important and needed changes in the law, I have updated this article to present at the 2010 Fraud and Compliance Forum sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association and Health Care Compliance Association.

That detailed article is excerpted here to explain the False Claims Act, with its 2009-2010 amendments. For ease of reading, it is divided into six parts:

Part 1: Introduction: What You Should Know About the False Claims Act And New State False Claims Acts After the 2009-2010 Amendments

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Increasing Number of State False Claims Acts

Part 3: The False Claims Act: Background & History

Part 4: How the False Claims Act Works After the 2009-2010 Amendments (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

Part 5: The Trend of Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

Part 6: States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

If you have any questions about a potential False Claims Act case, please feel free to contact us at 800-228-9159, or send an email through the link here.
(more…)

Part 1: Introduction: What You Should Know About the False Claims Act And New State False Claims Acts After the 2009-2010 Amendments

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 1 of an updated explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This Part 1 provides an introduction to the False Claims Act.

In 2010, more than ever, it is essential for lawyers to understand their clients’ potential liabilities under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). The health care industry increasingly has become the major focus of the federal government’s enforcement efforts, and usually pays at least two-thirds of the money recovered each year under this anti-fraud statute.

Adding to the health care lawyer’s challenges, since 2009 Congress has amended the False Claims Act three times, primarily to overturn judicial decisions that once created obstacles to FCA actions. Those amendments also have created an important new basis of FCA liability – retention of overpayments – which has great significance to health care providers. These 2009-2010 amendments make the FCA a far more effective enforcement tool for the government, and thus a much greater problem for defendants accused of health care fraud.

Further, a wave of new “whistleblower” statutes continues, inspired by the successes of the False Claims Act. These new laws include (1) an increasing number of state versions of the federal False Claims Act; (2) the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program; and (3) new “SEC Whistleblower” and “CFTC Whistleblower” programs, authorized in July 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act. By encouraging employees, contractors, and others to report allegations of fraud, these new whistleblower provisions create substantial concerns for health care organizations and other defendants alleged to be liable.

This article provides an overview of what health care lawyers should know about the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. As discussed below, the state Acts mirror the federal False Claims Act in important respects, but can differ in some significant ways.
(more…)

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Increasing Number of State False Claims Acts

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 2 of an explanation the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts with qui tam whistleblower provisions. This Part 2 discusses the sound policy reasons underlying the False Claims Act.

I. Why Have A “False Claims Act”?

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.(Quoted from legislative history of 1986 amendments to False Claims Act).

Fraud – and allegations of fraud – plagues government spending at every level. Today, as the federal government struggles to fund the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on health care through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs; the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; the financial “bailout” measures enacted after the 2008 financial collapse; disaster relief efforts; 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 has been the federal government’s “primary” weapon to recover losses from those who defraud it. 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.” Over the past two decades, 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.”

The federal False Claims Act since 1986 has been successful in recovering more than $27 billion, increasingly through qui tam lawsuits brought by private citizens. In light of the federal Act’s successes, Congress in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 created a large financial “carrot” for states that adopt state versions of the False Claims Act. Any state that passes its own “False Claims” statute with qui tam or whistleblower provisions that are at least as effective as those of the federal Act becomes eligible for a 10% increase in its share of Medicaid fraud recoveries.
(more…)

Part 3: The False Claims Act: Background & History

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 3 of an updated explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This Part 3 explains the history of the False Claims Act and why effective whistleblower laws are important.

II. Background of the Federal False Claims Act

Although 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.

According to one writer:

In 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.

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.”

One senator explained how the qui tam provisions of the Act were intended to work:
The effect of the [qui tam provisions] 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 to 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.

The original Act provided for double damages, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted. If a private citizen or “relator” used the qui tam provision to file suit, the government had no right to intervene or control the litigation. A successful “relator” was entitled to one-half of the government’s recovery.

The Act survived in substantially its original form until World War II. In a classic and oft-quoted 1885 passage, one court rejected the argument that courts should limit the statute’s reach on the grounds that qui tam actions were poor public policy:

The statute is a remedial one. It is intended to protect the treasury against the hungry and unscrupulous host that encompasses it on every side, and should be construed accordingly. It was passed upon the theory, based on experience as old as modern civilization that one of the least expensive and most effective means of preventing frauds on the treasury is to make the perpetrators of them liable to actions by private persons acting, if you please, under the strong stimulus of personal ill will or the hope of gain. Prosecutions conducted by such means compare with the ordinary methods as the enterprising privateer does to the slow-going public vessel.
(more…)

Part 4: How the False Claims Act Works After the 2009-2010 Amendments (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This Part 4 of a six part summary explains how the federal False Claims Act works, after Congress amended it three times in 2009-2010. It also discusses similar provisions of some state False Claims Acts.

This is an update from a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan.

III. Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories, only four of which were generally used before FERA. FERA has added an additional theory of liability for retention of overpayments, which now will likely be used quite often in health care cases:

First, the Act makes liable any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a “false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.”

Second, the Act creates liability for using a “false record or statement.” It imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.”

“Claim” is broadly defined, and is not limited to submissions made directly to the federal government:
(more…)

Part 5: The Trend of Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This is Part 5 of 6 of a recently updated article about the qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This is an updated version of a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sulliva.

This Part 5 discusses the striking success of the False Claims Act since its 1986 Amendments, as it has recovered more than $27 billion in taxpayers’ money wrongfully obtained by fraud and false claims.

IV. The Trend of Recent Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

Over the past twenty-four years since the modern False Claims Act was established through the 1986 Amendments, the federal government’s recoveries of dollars have grown astronomically, especially in health care cases. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) statistics 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.

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 came from qui tam cases. Similarly, in 2005, of the government’s total recovery of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of that amount came from qui tam cases.

In 2006, the Justice Department recovered a record of more than $3.1 billion in settlements and judgments for fraud and false claims. Of this record $3.1 billion in recoveries, 72% came from the health care field; 20% from defense; and 8% from other sources. In that record year, health care alone accounted for $2.2 billion in settlements and judgments, which included a $920 million settlement with Tenet Healthcare Corporation, the country’s second-largest hospital chain. Defense procurement fraud amounted to $609 million in recoveries, which included a $565 million settlement with the Boeing Company.

In 2010, DOJ set a record for health care fraud recoveries of $2.5 billion, out of a total of $3 billion recovered from civil fraud claims. $2.3 billion of that $3 billion resulted from qui tam cases. DOJ also set a two-year record for recoveries of $5.4 billion in 2009-2010, most as a result of qui tam cases.
(more…)

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

In Largest False Claims Act Case Over Mortgage Fraud, Bank of America to Pay $1 Billion

February 9, 2012
Michael Sullivan

Since the 2008 financial collapse, many have called for imposing liability on those whose fraud fueled the crisis.

In this early phase of what we predict will be a wave of financial fraud cases, the Justice Department announced today the largest False Claims Act settlement to date over mortgage fraud. Bank of America has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations that the Bank, through Countrywide Financial Corporation and some of its subsidiaries and affiliates, engaged in underwriting and origination mortgage fraud.

DOJ
(more…)

IRS Whistleblower Claims Explored at Heckerling Institute, the Leading Conference for Estate & Trust Lawyers and Estate Planners

January 16, 2012
Michael Sullivan

The University of Miami’s Heckerling Institute last week brought together the nation’s leading estate planners, including attorneys, trust officers, accountants, insurance advisors, and wealth management professionals. For the first time, these estate planning professionals delved into how estate and gift tax issues are the subjects of many IRS Whistleblower claims.

This program was organized by Marty Basson, who recently retired from the IRS Whistleblower Office and hung out his shingle (now providing a wealth of knowledge to the private bar), after a distinguished career as the IRS authority on estate and gift tax issues.

Marty has long served on the Heckerling Institute faculty at the University of Miami. Marty is also a charter member of the IRS Estate and Gift Tax National Advisory Panel, a select group of IRS attorneys who assist in forming nationwide policy decisions in the estate and gift tax area.

Marty asked me to join him and Dawn Applebaum of the IRS Whistleblower Office for a Heckerling panel discussion last week on the IRS Whistleblower Program in the estate and gift tax arena. While a few professionals in attendance had already filed IRS Whistleblower claims, the vast majority had not.

Heckerling provided a first class forum to address many of the “hot” issues in the tax whistleblower program. I was honored to join Marty and Dawn as the private whistleblower attorney who provided the perspective of whistleblowers in the IRS Whistleblower Program.

Once Congress created the new IRS Whistleblower Program in December 2006, the IRS Whistleblower Office was unsure whether it would receive many estate tax and gift tax claims. It received far more estate and gift tax claims than anticipated.

Consider a typical case of a divorced couple who both know that a parent has hidden accounts offshore. When that parent dies, the estranged spouse knows that the offshore accounts will not likely appear on the estate tax return. Such information about tax evasion is very useful to the Service, so that honest taxpayers do not bear more than our fair share of the burden.

Our Heckerling discussion covered many, many aspects of the IRS Whistleblower Program in a spirited discussion that ran out of time. Marty was suddenly free to express his own observations, not simply the official position of the IRS.

Among the topics were recent Tax Court opinions on protecting the confidentiality of whistleblowers and of taxpayer information in appeals, and the protections of taxpayer information in proposed new Tax Court Rule 345.

I was asked to discuss steps to protect whistleblowers from criminal and civil liability, which has been an important issue in past presentations after UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld found himself prosecuted for a federal offense. Marty also asked me to discuss the view of numerous tax whistleblowers as their claims progress through the process.
(more…)

How Whistleblowers in Qui Tam, IRS, and SEC Whistleblower Cases Must Protect Email Communications

December 18, 2011
Michael Sullivan

At the Healthcare Fraud Institute this past week, I was asked to address what steps whistleblowers should take to ensure confidentiality of emails with their lawyers. Although qui tam cases under the False Claims Act were the focus of our discussion, the same principles apply to tax whistleblowers and SEC whistleblowers.

Potential whistleblowers should never use their company’s email system, or any email account shared with or accessible to another person, for communicating with their attorney or for gathering information or evidence to report to the government.

Although the law encourages whistleblowers to report fraud, whistleblowers can create unnecessary problems for themselves by not following this rule.

First, emails between whistleblowers and their attorneys are privileged and confidential, but the privilege can disappear and be waived if the communication is disclosed to others.

Second, qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act are filed with a court order “sealing” the case from public view, while the government investigates. If an email accidentally exposes the case, the whistleblower may have violated the court’s “seal” order.

Third, alerting a defendant company that the whistleblower has reported the company’s fraud to the government is almost certain to provoke retaliation against an employee who is a whistleblower. Immediate suspension or firing often follows. Although the False Claims Act and the SEC and CFTC whistleblower laws create remedies for retaliation, those remedies take time to achieve. They will not pay the whistleblower’s mortgage next month–or this year.

We advise all of our clients that they must protect the confidentiality of their emails. Many people do not realize that emails sent from a company’s computer system usually leave some record, even if the employee is accessing a personal Gmail account.
(more…)

Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under False Claims Act Explained

December 1, 2011
Michael Sullivan

I have been asked to publicize a seminar at which I am speaking on handling qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act, the nation’s primary whistleblower law addressing fraud that steals government funds. Here is the announcement:

AAJ will hold a “Qui Tam” Teleseminar on December 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm EST. With recently amended whistleblower laws and several high profile settlements, lawyers need to understand the procedural complexities and pitfalls in qui tam whistleblower cases. Cosponsored by the Qui Tam Litigation
(more…)

2011 IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp Hears of Deputy Commissioner Steve Miller’s “Desire for the Whistleblower Program to Grow”

November 20, 2011
Michael Sullivan

At this past week’s third annual “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp,” Deputy IRS Commissioner for Service and Enforcement Steven T. Miller spoke of his “desire for the whistleblower program to grow.” A major announcement was that he would “push for” the IRS to begin using the expertise of whistleblowers who can help the IRS interpret information obtained in its audits..

In his remarks, Deputy Commissioner Miller described “offshore” tax abuses as a key area. He commented that whistleblower submissions have a “unique place” in “breaking bank secrecy.”

With budget reductions, the IRS is looking for ways to “leverage” its efforts. According to Miller, whistleblower submissions in at least three areas can help:

1. Promotion of abusive tax shelters known to potential whistleblowers
2. Tax violations in which sophisticated information technology systems pose a barrier to the IRS, unless a whistleblower can explain them
3. Inadequate information reporting that is required of third parties, and that whistleblowers can address
When it “makes sense” for the IRS to use the whistleblower’s expertise, Miller said he would encourage use of disclosure agreements with whistleblowers authorized under section 6103(n) of the Internal Revenue Code, which governs disclosure of taxpayer information. Examples he gave include review of information received in response to the Service’s information document requests, or explanation of information technology issues known to the whistleblower.

Sen. Chuck Grassley recently urged the IRS to make better use of expertise and resources that whistleblowers and their lawyers can provide, as the Justice Department does in False Claims Act cases.

This year’s IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp also included many other senior IRS officials. Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock and his office’s Special Counsel Debra Bowe were major participants.

Once again, the Office of Chief Counsel’s Senior Counsel Tom Kane participated and was again very generous with his time, both during and after the program. He addressed various litigation issues that arise in whistleblower matters. Senior Program Analysts Dawn Applebaum and Kathy Onken also provided a great deal of knowledge and insight into how the program is operating.

The most fascinating issues to me were those involving the international and offshore efforts of the IRS, the subject of the session I moderated. On this panel, joining IRS Whistleblower Office director Steve Whitlock and Senior Analyst Dawn Applebaum were Toni Weirauch, Deputy Director of International Crimes in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division; and Donna Prestia of the new Global High Wealth Division. The attendees gained an appreciation of the considerations of representing whistleblowers who may be foreign nationals gathering evidence in ways that comport with U.S. law, but that may be contrary to other countries’ bank secrecy laws.

My colleagues Erika Kelton, Paul Scott, Linda Stengle, and Margaret (Peggy) Finnerty deserve thanks for their excellent presentations as well.
(more…)

Next IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp: Offshore and International Tax Whistleblower Issues and Latest Developments

October 27, 2011
Michael Sullivan

Each year’s “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp” brings together senior officials of the IRS Whistleblower Office and tax whistleblower attorneys to explore the latest developments in the IRS Whistleblower Program. This year’s Boot Camp is November 15, 2011 in Washington.

Of special interest this year is that Deputy IRS Commissioner for Services and Enforcement Steven T. Miller will participate for the first time. Other IRS officials participating include (in order of appearance):

—Stephen Whitlock, Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office
–Debra Bowe, Special
(more…)

Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases, and the New Financial Whistleblower Programs by the SEC, CFTC, and IRS To Be Discussed at Whistleblower law Symposium

September 26, 2011
Michael Sullivan

Every two years, attorneys prosecuting or defending qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act and other whistleblower laws gather for the Whistleblower Law Symposium.

We have written much about “qui tam” whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act. Since last year’s passage of the Dodd-Frank law, whistleblowers who help expose (1) violations of the securities laws or (2) commercial bribery of foreign government officials, now can receive rewards of 10-30% of money sanctions imposed under the new SEC Whistleblower Program. The new IRS Whistleblower program pays whistleblowers 15-30% of amounts recovered. These cases also help stop fraud against taxpayers and investors.

On October 21, an unusual group of national experts on these claims will gather for the Whistleblower Law Symposium, which our firm organizes every two years. Not only do we have senior attorneys from the Department of Justice and experienced whistleblower lawyers discussing qui tam cases, but the Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office Steve Whitlock will participate and explain the tax whistleblower program. Senior SEC attorneys also have stated that they wish to be part of our seminar to discuss the new SEC Whistleblower Program, and are seeking approval to participate.

This conference is broader in scope than any whistleblower law conference in the country of which I am aware, as we have a national faculty of lawyers on both sides of these cases, as well as some of the top government officials involved.

Registration is still open for those who want to register online here:

Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. The Agenda is below.
(more…)

GAO Report Released on IRS Whistleblower Program: Raising–But Not Answering–the Fundamental Questions of What the Tax Whistleblower Program Needs to Be Most Effective

September 9, 2011
Michael Sullivan

The promising new IRS Whistleblower Program that Congress authorized in December 2006 is the subject of a long-anticipated GAO Report released this morning.

Disappointingly, the report raised, but did not attempt to answer, fundamental questions that will determine whether the IRS realizes the full potential of the new program in helping close the “tax gap”–or settles for a fraction of what it can accomplish.

Inspired by the dramatic successes of the False Claims Act in combating fraud against the government through rewarding whistleblowers,
(more…)

Whistleblower Lawyer and IRS Whistleblower Office Staff to Speak at 2012 Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning

August 23, 2011
Michael Sullivan

The new IRS Whistleblower Program for tax whistleblowers will be featured for the first time at the nation’s leading conference for estate planners, the Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning.

The Heckerling Institute is known as the country’s “leading conference for estate planners, including attorneys, trust officers, accountants, insurance advisors, and wealth management professionals.” This is the 46th Annual Institute, named after late Professor Philip E. Heckerling, founder of the University of Miami Law School’s Estate Planning Institute. The conference will take place from
(more…)

How the New CFTC Whistleblower Rules Will Operate

August 5, 2011
Michael Sullivan

When the CFTC announced its final whistleblower rules yesterday, it answered many questions about how the new CFTC whistleblower program will work.

David Meister, the CFTC’s Director of the Division of Enforcement, provided this summary according to the unofficial transcript our firm prepared of yesterday’s CFTC public meeting:

The Commission will pay awards to eligible whistleblowers who provide original information to the Commission leading to a successful Commission enforcement action and the imposition of monetary sanctions in excess of $1 million.

Congress provided that the amount of the whistleblower award must be between 10% and 30% of sanctions collected in either the Commission action or related action as defined in the rules. The Commission has discretion in determining the amount of the award within that 10 – 30 percent range.

The rules set forth a number of factors that the Commission will consider in determining the amount of the award. These factors include the significance of the information; the degree of the whistleblower’s assistance; the Commission’s programmatic interest; whether the award enhances the Commission’s ability to enforce the Commodity Exchange Act, protect customers and encourage people to come forward with high quality information; and potential adverse incentives from oversized awards.

To be award eligible, a whistleblower is not required, under our recommendation– a whistleblower is not required to report his information internally to his employer. Staff believes that such a requirement would deter some whistleblowers from coming forward, which would undermine congressional intent.
(more…)