(404) 609-1696

ATLANTA,GA

(404) 341-5314

DULUTH, GA

Whistleblower Blog

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

This Part 6 is the final installment of an article explaining why the major qui tam whistleblower statute, the federal False Claims Act, has led to a wave of new state False Claims Acts. It is an updated version of part of a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan.

V. States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

As noted, at least twenty-eight states now have a False Claims statute, and many other states are considering similar laws. The financial incentives of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 have not only prompted states that lacked False Claims statutes to enact them, but also have caused many states wishing to qualify for the additional funds to amend their existing False Claims statutes.

In essence, while states may enact “tougher” or more comprehensive laws than the federal False Claims Act, states with “weaker” or less effective laws-as judged by the standards of the Deficit Reduction Act-will not qualify for the additional funds.

Seven of the first ten states whose statutes were scrutinized by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) quickly learned this lesson when OIG disapproved their state statutes. These included California (which lacked a minimum penalty), Florida (which omitted “fraudulent” from its definition of claims), Indiana (which did not make defendants liable for “deliberate ignorance” and “reckless disregard”), Louisiana (which did not permit the state to intervene in cases, set too low a percentage for whistleblowers to recover, and set no minimum penalty), Michigan (which omitted penalties and liability for decreasing or avoiding an obligation to pay the government, i.e., a “reverse false claim”), Nevada (which had a statute of limitations too short and a minimum penalty too low), and Texas (which did not permit the whistleblower to litigate the case if the state did not, and which provided for lower percentage shares to whistleblowers and lower penalties). Most of these states have gone back to the drawing board to correct these deficiencies.

In sum, the Deficit Reduction Act has set minimum standards for state False Claims Acts for states wishing to receive these additional funds. In plain English, the state laws must protect at least Medicaid funds, and they must be at least as effective as the federal False Claims Act, especially in rewarding and facilitating qui tam actions for false or fraudulent claims, with damages and penalties no less than those under the federal Act.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Insider Trading Probe Reinforces Immediate Need for Strongest SEC Whistleblower Program

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports a “sweeping” insider trading investigation, with civil and criminal charges soon to follow, involving “consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders, and analysts across the nation.”

While the details remain to be seen, the unending series of fraud cases that continue–despite Sarbanes-Oxley–proves why Wall Street must not be allowed to neuter the first potentially meaningful SEC whistleblower program, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

How is it that the hallowed “compliance programs” born from Sarbanes-Oxley have utterly failed to stop the breathtaking frauds of Madoff, Stanford, and other recent post-SOX scandals?

As many honest employees encountering fraud discover, too often “compliance programs” mask efforts to identify employees who object to wrongdoing, so the wrongdoers can then gut their careers.

How well did compliance programs work at the many Madoff-abetting feeder funds that made scores of millions, as Madoff’s scheme spread to snare more victims? Read Harry Markopolis’ book to see how many of those firms’ “compliance” efforts worked, as Madoff’s enablers ignored glaring warning signs that multiplied over the life of the scheme.

SEC Chair Mary Schapiro and Director of Enforcement Robert Khuzami seem dedicated to invigorating the SEC’s enforcement efforts. While the new proposed SEC whistleblower rules show considerable thought, they threaten the program’s effectiveness by bowing too far to industry concerns, and excluding many potential whistleblowers such as accountants, who may be the best position to stop the next Madoff.

Wall Street would have the SEC create a labyrinth of further exceptions to who can participate in the new SEC Whistleblower program. One lethal industry proposal is to require potential whistleblowers first to run the gauntlet of firms’ “compliance” programs–a concept wholly inconsistent with Congress’ intent that whistleblowers must be allowed to report violations anonymously.

The initial screening of SEC whistleblower claims should not be outsourced to the very firms alleged to have violated the law, which is what mandatory internal reporting effectively would do. The SEC–like the Department of Justice and IRS–should be the first to screen SEC whistleblower claims. With any SEC whistleblower claim large enough to pursue, by definition the culpable firm has typically approved the violation, or at least looked the other way.

Otherwise, who in a position to expose significant fraud would come forward, if required first to reveal their objections to the fraud to those who may have approved it? And if the fraud stays concealed–as it too often has despite “compliance” programs–the public loses.

Excerpts from the WSJ article by SUSAN PULLIAM, MICHAEL ROTHFELD,JENNY STRASBURG and GREGORY ZUCKERMAN are below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

With New SEC Whistleblower Program Proposed Rules Announced, Will the SEC Allow Potential Defendants to Gut Them?

We have been awaiting the SEC’s proposed rules for its new SEC Whistleblower Program, released yesterday. Even before the announcement, however, those who oppose this first potentially meaningful SEC Whistleblower Program have begun efforts to undermine it.

The SEC’s website already includes some firms’ suggestions to impose extreme restrictions on SEC whistleblowers–contrary to how other successful whistleblower programs operate.

Designing any new whistleblower program should begin with studying more than two decades of successes of the nation’s major whistleblower law, the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act has been so effective in uncovering and penalizing fraud against the government since 1986 that it has inspired Congress and the states to enact a wave of new whistleblower statutes–including the Dodd-Frank whistleblower mandate in section 922.

Unless the SEC seeks to create an ineffective program, it makes no sense to impose restrictions on whistleblowers that do not exist in False Claims Act cases.

One such damaging restriction would be requiring whistleblowers first to report within the company violations of the law, before going to the SEC. Past experience with the False Claims Act shows that warning violators of the law (who know their own violations) invites destruction of evidence by those who engineered the lawbreaking, and destroys the whistleblower’s career.

Other deceptive suggestions are that the SEC follow the “approach” of the promising new IRS Whistleblower Program–but with far greater restrictions on whistleblowing.

For example, one representative of future defendants urges what are actually variations on the “one-bite” and “no-bite” rules of the IRS, which historically have restricted the IRS’s receipt of certain information, or information from certain whistleblowers.

In fact, the IRS trend appears to be the opposite. In a March 2010 IRS Notice and in June 2010 changes to the Internal Revenue Manual, the “one-bite” rule appears to be giving way to the more sensible approach of allowing whistleblowers more than “one bite” at submitting information that may be useful to the IRS.

Likewise, a suggestion that the SEC adopt a variation the “no-bite” rule would expand it far beyond the IRS concept of not accepting information from the “taxpayer’s representative” before the IRS. This suggestion would go much further and prohibit submissions to the SEC by anyone who has a “fiduciary” duty to a public company–which arguably could be most or all employees.

We will comment further on the specifics of yesterday’s proposed rules, but the basic principles above should guide the SEC in what it finally decides.

The SEC’s announcement yesterday is reprinted below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

Links to SEC Whistleblower and CFTC Whistleblower Lawyer Information

Our whistleblower lawyer blog has followed closely the development of the first potentially meaningful SEC Whistleblower and Commodities Whistleblower Programs. That link provides regular updates.

Based on our firm’s long experience in representing whistleblowers, we were asked by the Senate Banking Committee staff for input in how the new SEC and CFTC whistleblower provisions of the July 2010 Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act should work. We urged that the Senate change the tepid House version, which provided no meaningful rewards to whistleblowers,
(more…)

Continue Reading

SEC Recovers $39 Million under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for Bribery and Kickbacks in Mexico and Iraq

One of the most interesting twists to the new SEC Whistleblower Program will be how many commercial bribes and kickbacks paid to foreign government officials will now come to light. As we have written about previously, the SEC shares jurisdiction with the Justice Department over such cases that violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

An example of why whistleblowers will come forward is this afternoon’s announcement of the SEC’s $39 million settlement with ABB Ltd (“ABB”), a Swiss company that provides power and automation products and services.

The SEC alleged that ABB made more than $2.7 million in bribes and kickbacks to obtain more than $100 million in contracts. The payments allegedly were made to “government officials in Mexico to obtain business with government owned power companies,” and to the “former regime in Iraq to obtain contracts under the United Nations Oil for Food Program.”

According to the SEC, some of the kickbacks were made through bank guarantees and cash payments. As is common in disguising unlawful payments, the kickbacks were recorded on the company’s books as legitimate payments–here, for “after sales services,” “consultation costs,” and “commissions.”

ABB, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, agreed not only to pay disgorgement and penalties totalling more than $39 million, but also agreed to pay a criminal fine of $30,420,000, according to the SEC. The company also agreed to be bound by certain “undertakings” concerning its FCPA compliance program.

As to how an FCPA whistleblower might fare who reports similar FCPA violations of bribery of foreign government officials, the new SEC Whistleblower Program pays 10% to 30% of monetary sanctions collected–approximately $4 million to $12 million under similar facts.

The SEC’s announcement is reprinted in full below, and the SEC’s Complaint is linked here:
(more…)

Continue Reading

Health Care Fraud Cases and 2009-2010 Amendments to False Claims Act Discussed at National Fraud and Compliance Forum

At the annual Fraud and Compliance Forum in Baltimore that runs through Tuesday, the nation’s top health care lawyers will be paying close attention to recent changes to the nation’s primary whistleblower law, the False Claims Act. The “qui tam” provisions of the False Claims Act allow private citizen whistleblowers (“relators”) to share in the government’s recovery of damages.

As a former defense attorney who now represents whistleblowers, I have been asked to present a program at this conference with Rick Shackelford of King & Spalding, to discuss these major amendments to the False Claims Act–the first since 1986. Congress acted decisively in three recent major bills to restore the False Claims Act to its intended strength, in the face of court decisions that created obstacles to its use.

The recent amendments were part of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617 (“FERA”); the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (“PPACA”); and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (the “Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act”).

This week’s forum is sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association and Health Care Compliance Association.

An updated discussion of the False Claims Act after these 2009 and 2010 changes will appear soon on this Whistleblower Lawyer Blog. A brief summary of those important changes to the Act is below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

Indiana Attorney General Invites Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases by Health Care & Pharmaceutical Employees To Stop Health Care Fraud

Smart and effective state Attorneys General have fought fraud against their citizens through encouraging greater use of the country’s major whistleblower law, the False Claims Act, and state versions of that law.

Texas AG Greg Abbott, for example, has a staff that has long distinguished itself for recovering millions of stolen taxpayer funds in health care fraud cases, under the leadership of Pat O’Connell and, more recently, Ray Winter.

Following this tradition, Indiana AG Greg Zoeller is urging employees of pharmaceutical companies and heath care entities to help stop health care fraud, and possibly share in the recovery as qui tam whistleblowers under the state and federal False Claims Acts.

While we have discussed in detail how the False Claims Act operates, AG Zoeller’s announcement gives a succinct summary. We have reprinted it below, and applaud his efforts.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Shouldn’t the IRS Pay Tax Whistleblowers Who Help Prevent Fraudulent Refunds?

When IRS whistleblowers save U.S taxpayers money, they deserve the rewards that lawmakers such as Sen. Chuck Grassley fought to establish. In 2006 his efforts resulted in the first meaningful IRS Whistleblower program ever, which is attracting many tax whistleblowers with significant evidence.

We have discussed previously the many positive aspects of the long-awaited IRS Whistleblower procedures published in June–and one illogical, self-defeating feature. Some in the IRS–and apparently not the IRS Whistleblower Office–thought whistleblowers should not be rewarded when they report tax
(more…)

Continue Reading

Merck and Other Pharma Companies Probed by DOJ and SEC in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Investigation

When Pharma manufacturers are targeted by the Department of Justice, qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act are often the reason.

Now, whistleblowers may also receive rewards for reporting violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), thanks to the new whistleblower provisions of the Wall Street financial reform law. Announcements like Merck’s recent SEC filing that it is now the subject an FCPA investigation involving other Pharma companies should become common, as corruption will now be increasingly exposed in a new wave of SEC Whistleblower cases.

The recent 10-Q filing of Merck & Co., Inc. stated in part:

The Company has received letters from the DOJ and the SEC that seek information about activities in a number of countries and reference the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company is cooperating with the agencies in their requests and believes that this inquiry is part of a broader review of pharmaceutical industry practices in foreign countries.

As we have followed through its development, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law created the new SEC Whistleblower and CFTC Whistleblower programs, which will include FCPA cases.

The FCPA, as we have discussed previously, prohibits bribery of foreign government officials in international business transactions, and false entries in books and records of those companies within the statute. Whistleblowers who assist the SEC recover monetary sanctions in FCPA cases now have an enforceable right to a monetary award of 10-30%.

Pharma’s exposure for any bribes and kickbacks abroad are a ripe subject for FCPA enforcement.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Does SEC Whistleblower Reward of $1 Million Signal A New Attitude Toward Wall Street Whistleblowing?

Only days after the new financial reform law created the first potentially meaningful awards for whistleblowers reporting securities and commodities violations and abuses, the SEC may have signaled a new attitude toward encouraging whistleblowers.

The SEC recently announced its first million dollar award for a whistleblower’s report of information about insider trading involving hedge fund adviser Pequot Capital Management, Inc., its chief executive, Arthur J. Samberg, and David E. Zilkha, a Microsoft employee.

Although $1 million may not sound like much when compared to the losses caused by the Madoffs of the world, it is a dramatic improvement over what the SEC had done before.

In following the development of the new SEC Whistleblower Program, we previously discussed the Inspector General’s summary of how, over the past eleven years, the SEC had paid a total of less than $160,000 to reward whistleblowers under the “old” SEC bounty program for whistleblowers. The IG reported:

The SEC bounty program has made very few payments to whistleblowers since its inception and received a relatively small number of bounty applications. As a result, the program’s success has been minimal and its existence is practically unknown.
Since the inception of the SEC bounty program in 1989, the SEC has paid a total of $159,537 to five claimants as detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bounty Payments to Whistleblowers Bounty Claimant Year Bounty Amount 1) Claimant 1 1989 $3,500 2) Claimant 2 2001 $18,152 3) Claimant 3 2002 $29,079 4) Claimant 4 2005 $17,500 4) Claimant 4 2006 $29,920 4) Claimant 4 2009 $55,220 5) Claimant 5 2007 $6,166
Total $159,537
Source: OIG Generated

Just as another Inspector General’s report in 2006 set the stage for the successful new IRS Whistleblower Program that is attracting many reports of even billions in tax liability, let’s hope this Inspector General’s report has motivated the SEC to make full use of the opportunity to build a meaningful whistleblower program. We are already getting calls from potential Wall Street whistleblowers wishing to take advantage of it, and it could be a rewarding process–depending on how well the SEC seizes the opportunity.

The SEC’s recent announcement of the $1 million reward is reprinted below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

CFTC Announces Final Whistleblower Rules, Rejects “Mandatory Internal Reporting” by Whistleblowers

The final whistleblower rules of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are being announced now at a CFTC open meeting. Like the SEC, the CFTC has rejected any provision that whistleblowers be required first to report internally the violations in question, but will treat internal reporting as a “positive” consideration in its awards.

The alternative pushed by business would have required all CFTC whistleblowers first to risk career suicide by reporting the boss’s wrongdoing to the boss himself.

Industry’s approach would have made the Commission the laughing stock of law enforcement, since no rational person with a career and a mortgage would risk reporting even major fraud with that requirement.

Fortunately, the CFTC put first its responsibility to protect the public, and is taking seriously its law enforcement duties by seeking to root out major frauds.

Madoff, Stanford, and the other major frauds of the past decade prove that internal compliance programs cannot protect the public. That is why Congress in Dodd-Frank demanded the first meaningful SEC and CFTC whistleblower programs.

We applaud the CFTC on this important stand, and look forward to reviewing the text of the final rules when made available.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Produced $97 Million in Recoveries After Being Declined by Justice Department

When qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act are “declined” by the Department of Justice, the whistleblower or “relator” is authorized to pursue the case on the government’s behalf.

The DOJ statistics below show that these declined cases have generated more than $97 million in recoveries for taxpayers since 1987, the year after the modern False Claims Act was born.

These facts dispel any notion that the Justice Department has sufficient resources to pursue all meritorious cases. Some of the more notable False Claims Act recoveries were achieved by private attorneys pursuing these “declined” cases.

A list of these declined cases that have brought almost $100 million into the U.S. Treasury is below. This amount is “larger than the sum of all salaries paid to members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate last year,” as observed by Pat Burns of Taxpayers Against Fraud.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Former Credit Suisse Officials Indicted For Assisting U.S. Taxpayers Evade Taxes Since 1953

The IRS emphasis on international and offshore tax violations continues. Today, the government made clear that U.S. prosecutions for cross-border tax evasion did not end with the 2009 landmark UBS settlement, which followed a tax whistleblower’s approaching U.S officials.

The Justice Department announced today that three more former Credit Suisse bankers have been indicted for helping U.S. taxpayers evade U.S. taxes.

Credit Suisse has been under U.S. scrutiny for at least the past year. Today’s indictments of three former officials bring to seven
(more…)

Continue Reading

Progress with Dodd-Frank’s Whistleblower Programs: CFTC and SEC Working to Deter the Next Big Schemes to Harm Investing Public

Too often missing in today’s discussions of Dodd-Frank’s one-year anniversary is appreciation of efforts by CFTC and SEC leadership to build from scratch the effective new whistleblower programs mandated by Dodd-Frank.

With scant resources, each agency is creating an essential mechanism to protect today’s investors from the next fraudulent scheme.

Let’s start with the CFTC. When I met with Chairman Gary Gensler and his CFTC staff in March to discuss the CFTC’s proposed whistleblower rules, I was struck by Chairman Gensler’s focus on what improvements could be made to its “draft” commodities whistleblower rules.

The only non-lawyer in the room, Gensler seemed to grasp more quickly than anyone potential abuses that its draft rules would not correct.

CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton has also recognized how essential an effective whistleblower program is to protect investors.

More importantly, even the CFTC’s initial cut at its rules showed that it would not simply copy the SEC whistleblower rules’ approach, but would independently design a meaningful program to protect the public by attracting significant whistleblower information to ferret out frauds.

Likewise, the SEC–whose whistleblower rules have been finalized–has shown a welcome commitment to making SEC whistleblowers welcome. Chair Mary Schapiro, Director of Enforcement Robert Khuzami, and other staff such as Steve Cohen, Jordan Thomas, and Sarit Klein put more than considerable thought and effort in refining the SEC whistleblower rules announced in May 2011.

Some in Congress seek to keep the SEC and CFTC so underfunded that they cannot protect the public effectively. As former SEC counsel Professor Don Langevoort observed, “Congress maintains increasingly tight control over SEC policy largely through the budgetary process, and having the Commission be habitually needy and under-resourced fits well within this strategy. The campaign contributions from various sources with an interest in securities regulation are large, and influential members of Congress hardly maximize their own political advantage by stepping aside and leaving the SEC free to do its work as it sees fit.”
(more…)

Continue Reading

SEC Charges FCPA Bribery Scheme–Feds Collect $15 Million

The SEC Whistleblower Program encompasses not only classic securities violations, but also violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), a topic we have followed closely.

This past week, the SEC filed and settled an FCPA case against Armor Holdings, Inc., and collected more than $5.6 million, while the Department of Justice added almost $10.3 million in criminal fines.

The SEC charged that Armor Holdings, Inc. engaged in a bribery scheme to sell body armor to U.N. peacekeeping missions. The Commission also alleged that Armor Holdings violated the federal securities laws’ books and records and internal controls provisions by failing to account properly for commissions in 2001-2007.

Demonstrating the SEC’s increased emphasis on FCPA enforcement, this case is one of 32 FCPA cases the Commission has filed since 2010. Bribery of foreign government officials for business is having increased repercussions.

According to the SEC’s Complaint, through a U.K. subsidiary Armor Holdings paid more than $200,000 through an intermediary to a United Nations official who could send it business, and used a sham consulting agreement to disguise its actions. The result was more than $7 million in additional revenues, and more than $1.5 million in additional profits, according to the SEC.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Why the SEC Whistleblower Rules Show A New Seriousness About Using Valuable Whistleblower Information

The suspense over the final SEC whistleblower rules ended with the SEC’s release of its final whistleblower rules last week. The CFTC is to follow suit soon in announcing its own commodities whistleblower rules.

We have followed the SEC rules’ development, after being part of the small group of pro-whistleblower attorneys who met with the Commissioners and staff and urged changes to the draft rules to make them effective.

In January, I had the opportunity to visit with SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro,
(more…)

Continue Reading

Fraud Enforcement Adds Teeth by Pursuing Individuals Allegedly Responsible for Organizations’ Frauds

Last week the government’s criminal trial of former GlaxoSmithKline vice president and associate general counsel Lauren Stevens ended abruptly, as the judge found no basis to allow the case to go to a jury. Prosecutors had charged that she obstructed justice and made false statements to cover up the company’s improper marketing of the antidepressant drug Wellbutrin SR.

While she dodged a bullet, the case jolted lawyers handling health care fraud investigations, which are more typically civil cases under the False Claims Act.

Yet
(more…)

Continue Reading

New Supreme Court False Claims Act Decision Today: Could This Court Be Any Friendlier to Qui Tam Defendants?

False Claims Act history repeated itself today.

Since Congress acted decisively in 1986 to breathe life into the False Claims Act through amendments intended to expand use of the nation’s major anti-fraud whistleblower law, the Supreme Court and some lower courts have regularly intervened by imposing their own views on what Congress must have meant in writing the 1986 amendments.

Those decisions hostile to enforcement of the False Claims Act included Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008); United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1032 (2005); and United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 376 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D. Va. 2005), rev’d, 562 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2009)).

Since then, in 2009 and 2010 Congress responded emphatically with three more sets of FCA amendments to state, in essence, what Congress actually intended in 1986, and still intends, the law to mean. We have previously discussed those amendments made by the 2009-2010 legislation known as FERA, PPACA, and Dodd-Frank. (Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617 (“FERA”); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (“PPACA”); Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act (“Dodd-Frank”), Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.)

Today’s decision in Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk is a victory for those who seek to make it more difficult to use the “old” version of the False Claims Act to battle fraud against taxpayers. The Supreme Court’s decision today continued the legislative tennis match with Congress.

The Court held that what is known as the “public disclosure bar” of the False Claims Act deprived courts of jurisdiction over this qui tam whistleblower case, because the whistleblower had attempted to corroborate his allegations through FOIA requests.

Fortunately for those who favor stopping fraud against taxpayers, the decision should have no effect on qui tam cases filed after the March 22, 2010 enactment of PPACA, the major health reform bill.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Tax Whistleblower Attorneys At IRS Hearing Urge Treasury and IRS to Be True to Congress’s Intent in Expanding the IRS Whistleblower Program

As has been reported today in Tax Notes and CCH, my colleague Richard Rubin and I addressed the IRS at its hearing yesterday on the proposed IRS Whistleblower rules. We were able to speak for roughly one-third of the hearing.

We focused on fundamentals. We urged that Treasury and the IRS must stay true to the intent of Congress to expand the number and types of IRS whistleblower claims that the IRS receives and pursues, and that merit awards to whistleblowers.

I argued
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblower Rules Hearing on May 11 Attracts Global Attention

A frequent question I receive is whether non-US citizens can receive rewards under the IRS Whistleblower Program. There is no limitation to US citizens, and persons around the world are eligible to participate in the IRS Whistleblower Program, regardless of citizenship.

Perhaps this is one reason why the May 11 hearing in DC on the IRS Whistleblower rules has attracted attention far and wide, from the India Times, to the American Banking and Market News, to the Northside Neighbor. We will
(more…)

Continue Reading