ATLANTA,GA
DULUTH, GA
We have followed closely the trend of states enacting their own versions of the nation’s chief whistleblower law the False Claims Act. North Carolina has become the newest state to enact its own False Claims Act, which is reprinted below.
We congratulate the State of North Carolina on a momentous accomplishment.
(more…)
Offshore tax abuses have been an IRS priority for some time, but the impending September 23, 2009 deadline for the IRS “Voluntary Disclosure” program–combined with the recent announcement that UBS has agreed with the IRS to release 4,450 names of U.S. account holders–has created a flurry of activity for the IRS.
Anxious taxpayers with exposure cannot be sure that their names are not on the list being produced. Last week, the IRS added a 52nd “FAQ” about the Voluntary Disclosure Program to explain its application to UBS account holders:
Q52. Are UBS account holders eligible to make a voluntary disclosure under the IRS’s offshore Voluntary Disclosure Practice (VDP) announced on March 23, 2009, and set to expire September 23, 2009?
Yes, provided that the UBS account holder is otherwise eligible under the VDP. However, a UBS account holder becomes ineligible to make a voluntary disclosure under the offshore VDP at the time the IRS receives information from any source, including from the Swiss Federal Tax Administration (“SFTA”), UBS, an informant, or otherwise, relating specifically to the account holder’s undisclosed foreign accounts or undisclosed foreign entities.
As part of the agreement with Switzerland and UBS announced by the IRS and the Department of Justice on August 19, 2009, UBS will be sending notices to account holders indicating that their information may be provided to the IRS under the agreement. If a UBS account holder gets this notification from UBS before September 23rd, this notification will not by itself disqualify the account holder from making a voluntary disclosure under the offshore VDP by the September 23rd deadline. Although many of these notices will not be sent by UBS to account holders until after September 23rd, the September 23rd offshore VDP deadline applies to all UBS account holders even if they have not received a notice by that date.(See https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=210027,00.html).
The IRS Whistleblower Program adds another element of suspense for non-compliant taxpayers. How many of these taxpayers may learn that the IRS Whistleblower Program has already identified them to the IRS?
And if not yet identified, how many taxpayers who will decline the benefits of voluntary disclosure by September 23 will be revealed to the IRS later through the very effective IRS Whistleblower Program?
(more…)
Health care cases that our lawyers see most often involve whistleblowers who know of violations of the False Claims Act. While we also pursue many IRS violations under the IRS Whistleblower Program, the health care industry is not the source of most of those claims.
In perhaps a new trend, last week a federal court in Florida agreed with the IRS that a hospital CEO is personally liable for failing to pay over to the IRS close to $2 million in payroll taxes. (Doulgeris v. United States, M.D.Fla., August 03, 2009).
Earlier this year, the chairman of the board of a tax-exempt hospital was held personally liable for the hospital’s failing to collect and pay to the IRS payroll taxes, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. (Verret v. United States, 5th Cir., 2009). The board chair, however, had extensive involvement in the operations of the entity.
Payroll tax fraud thus appears to remain an IRS priority. The reasoning of the Florida federal judge explains how the CEO was found personally liable for unpaid payroll taxes;
(more…)
For a “webinar” on August 11, 2009, I have been asked to discuss not only potential liability under the False Claims Act for false or fraudulent claims to the federal government, but also what has been called the “Mini-False Claims Act”: the “Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act,” 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801-12,
Because it is not feasible for the government to handle under the False Claims Act every conceivable case of a false claim in procurement, the PFCRA was enacted so that smaller claims could be handled in an administrative process.
A major provision of the PFCRA, section 3802, is reprinted below:
Chapter 38. Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements
§ 3802. False claims and statements; liability
(a)(1) Any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a claim that the person knows or has reason to know–
(A) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
(B) includes or is supported by any written statement which asserts a material fact which is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
(C) includes or is supported by any written statement that–
(i) omits a material fact;
(ii) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent as a result of such omission; and
(iii) is a statement in which the person making, presenting, or submitting such statement has a duty to include such material fact; or
(D) is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed,
shall be subject to, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such claim. Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, such person shall also be subject to an assessment, in lieu of damages sustained by the United States because of such claim, of not more than twice the amount of such claim, or the portion of such claim, which is determined under this chapter to be in violation of the preceding sentence.
(more…)
How to pay for health care in the United States, as costs inexorably grow?
The IRS Whistleblower Program may help by narrowing the “tax gap”–the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid each year. Treasury’s latest estimate is that $345 billion owed remains uncollected from those who engage in tax fraud, tax evasion, and other tax noncompliance. (“Update on Reducing the Federal Tax Gap and Improving Voluntary Compliance”).
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Mont., raised this tax gap with the next IRS Chief Counsel, William J. Wilkins, on July 14: “We’re right now trying to figure how to pay for healthcare reform,” Baucus told Wilkins. “And it’s ironic that coincidentally, the amount we are trying to raise is that amount.”
The new IRS Whistleblower Program should dramatically improve the IRS’s efforts to close that tax gap. In December 2006, Congress authorized rewards of 15-30% paid to IRS whistleblowers who provide information that assists the IRS in collecting amounts owed to the IRS.
For the first time, IRS whistleblowers have an enforceable “right” to receive a reward. Early indications from the clients who have contacted us are that many substantial claims are being presented, including claims of over $1 billion owed to the IRS. (To see how the IRS Whistleblower Program works, see excerpts of this interview with IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock.)
Even the SEC is examining the success to date of the IRS program, in determining how the SEC might encourage and reward whistleblowers who come forward to reveal the next Madoff or Stanford.
Whistleblowers with solid information will help close the tax gap, and avoid imposing new taxes on the rest of the law-abiding Americans who pay their taxes.
(more…)
At the 20th Annual Convention of NELA, the National Employment Lawyers Association, I recently had the pleasure of moderating a panel discussion of some of the country’s top “whistleblower” lawyers. The topic was “The Most Pressing Issues in Representing Whistleblowers.”
Joining me in this panel discussion were Richard Renner and David J. Marshall. Richard is an attorney with Kohn & Colapinto in Washington, DC. and also serves as Legal Director of the National Whistleblowers Center. David is a partner with Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP
(more…)
Could a meaningful SEC “whistleblower” program prevent the next Madoff or Stanford debacle? The SEC and legislators are now seriously considering that question. That Madoff managed to defraud investors for so long proves that the current system is inadequate.
Past experience proves that incentives to whistleblowers to report illegal acts work. The nation’s primary “anti-fraud” statute that protects federal funds, the False Claims Act, has been extremely successful in encouraging whistleblowers to come forward by allowing them to share in the government’s recovery.
As we have written about extensively on this whistleblower lawyer blog, based on the successes of the False Claims Act in fighting and deterring fraud, Congress has encouraged states to enact their own similar state false claims acts with incentives for whistleblowers to expose fraud (and almost half of the states now have such laws).
Likewise, in December 2006 Congress created the first meaningful IRS Whistleblower Program, which we regularly follow here. At present, the IRS Whistleblower Program created in December 2006 may help ferret out some SEC violations when the violator also has significant tax liability to the IRS.
Hedge fund abuses with tax consequences are already the subject of some IRS Whistleblower claims, and more will follow as the IRS Whistleblower Program gains notoriety. Based on our dealings with the IRS in pursuing these claims, this IRS Whistleblower Program has great promise.
But the IRS provisions simply do not cover all of the wrongdoing that goes on. Thus, the SEC desperately needs its own “whistleblower” program, with meaningful incentives to encourage citizens who report wrongdoing.
The SEC’s existing “whistleblower” provisions are too limited to be effective. 15 U.S.C. § 78U-1(e) authorizes a “bounty” to whistleblowers of what is effectively 0-10% of civil penalties paid in insider trading cases. (See full text here.) Thus, the SEC’s existing incentives are limited to insider trading cases, and do not address any other securities laws violations.
Like the “old” IRS Whistleblower rewards, very few awards have been made by the SEC, even in insider trading cases. Moreover, there is no “right” to a reward even if the whistleblower’s information causes the government to recover money from wrongdoers. A system of small, discretionary, and infrequent payments is simply ineffective to cause whistleblowers to come forward.
We understand that the SEC has been looking to correct this gap in protecting investors. This week, Rep.Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, released a letter from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Inspector General H. David Kotz. The IG seems to understand the need to modernize the SEC’s incentives to whistleblowers, in his recommendations below:
(more…)
The statute authorizing the SEC in insider trading cases to pay whistleblowers “bounties” of up to 10% of civil penalties is below. (See our separate post discussing why the SEC needs a new, meaningful whistleblower program to help stop the next Madoff scheme.)
(more…)
We understand the uncertainty that comes with legal issues. Our attorneys are here to guide you every step of the way — from the first consultation to courtroom resolution (if that becomes necessary). We offer confidential, no-obligation case evaluations.
📞 Call us today at (404) 341-5356 or email finchmccranie@finchmccranie.com to schedule your consultation.