Published on: | by

In our former life as lawyers defending False Claims Act cases, our defendant clients had to consider whether the payments made to settle qui tam cases under the False Claims Act were deductible for tax purposes, and to what extent.

The IRS recently issued a paper on the subject: whether a defendant’s payment to the Department of Justice to resolve False Claims Act allegations is “deductible in its entirety as a section 162(a) ordinary and necessary business expense, or includes non-deductible penalty amounts under section 162(f).”

This paper, LMSB-4-0908-045, is reproduced below:
Continue reading →

Published on: | by

Will the IRS Whistleblower Program and the False Claims Act be powerful weapons in redressing the fraud and abuse that led to the current financial crisis–and to the future fraud and abuse that is certain to target the “bailout” billions of taxpayer funds?

Fraud and abuse have never been in short supply. The ongoing financial crisis points to staggering amounts of past financial abuses that now threaten to wipe out Americans’ savings, if not undermine the world economy.

Now, the federal government’s stated plans to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds for the “bailout”–largely because of the lack of past oversight–will create countless opportunities for more fraud against the taxpayers.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

When Congress authorized the new IRS Whistleblower Program in December 2006, it required annual reporting to Congress about how the new whistleblower provisions have been used, what results were obtained, and what recommendations to improve the program should be considered.

The Secretary of the Treasury has recently issued the first such Report, which summarizes the first 12 months of the new IRS Whistleblower Office.

For those who follow the IRS Whistleblower Program, the Report provides a look into the substantial progress made in a short time by this very small group within the IRS. These developments have been followed on this whistleblower lawyer blog since the infancy of the IRS Whistleblower Office.

Much-anticipated data about recoveries and rewards paid under the IRS Whistleblower Program is included in the Report. In FY 2007, the IRS paid $13 million in rewards to “informants” (whistleblowers), but those rewards were based on the lower percentages that applied before the IRS Whistleblower statute was amended effective December 20, 2006, to double the size of rewards available to 15-30% of the government’s recovery. Rewards for IRS Whistleblower claims submitted after December 20, 2006 should be much greater, especially since the new Program has generated a wave of submissions.

The IRS’s priorities for the Whistleblower Program in FY 2008 include revising old policies and procedures concerning whistleblower rewards, developing the criteria to be used in making reward decisions, soliciting feedback to help guide the new Program, and testing and then deploying a new case management system. (Some of the same information will be discussed in an upcoming article on “best practices” in pursuing IRS Whistleblower claims that I was requested to write for the TAF Quarterly Review, based on my interview of IRS Whistleblower Office Director Stephen Whitlock in early September.)

We congratulate the very capable staff of the IRS Whistleblower Office for all of their progress to date. For those interested in reading the full Report, the body of the Report is reprinted below:
Continue reading →

Published on: | by

For the second time since the new IRS Whistleblower office was created in early 2007, IRS Whistleblower Office Director Stephen A. Whitlock addressed questions from whistleblower attorneys at the Taxpayers Against Fraud annual conference yesterday in Washington. Joining him as panelists were U.S. Tax Court Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo; Professor Dennis J. Ventry, Jr. of American University’s Washington College of Law; Erika Kelton of Phillips & Cohen LLP; and as moderator Paul D. Scott of the Law Offices of Paul D. Scott.

Afterward, I had the pleasure of meeting one-to-one and interviewing IRS Whistleblower Office Director Whitlock for an article on “best practices” for lawyers who pursue IRS Whistleblower claims, which will appear in Taxpayers Against Fraud’s publication, the TAF Quarterly Review.

As this whistleblower lawyer blog has followed closely, much progress with the new IRS Whistleblower Program has occurred since Director Whitlock first appeared at the TAF Annual Conference a year ago to explain the new program.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

As this whistleblower lawyer blog has discussed before, accounting firms that promote fraudulent tax shelters are prime targets of IRS enforcement efforts (often assisted by IRS tax whistleblowers).

In a decision last week, the prosecution of 13 former KPMG partners and other executives for their alleged involvement in fraudulent tax shelters was thwarted–again. A panel of judges from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s dismissal of the charges against these KPMG defendants.

The court did not find the tax shelters to be lawful, however. Instead, it agreed with the trial court that “the government deprived [the defendants] of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment by causing KPMG to place conditions on the advancement of legal fees to [the defendants], and to cap the fees and ultimately end them. Because the government failed to cure the Sixth Amendment violation, and because no other remedy will return [the defendants] to the status quo ante, we affirm the dismissal of the indictment.”

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

As this whistleblower lawyer blog has written about often, abuses of offshore transactions have increasingly become a target of IRS enforcement efforts. A Utah attorney learned this lesson last week when he was sentenced to ten years in prison, and was ordered to pay $2.7 million, for his role in an offshore tax evasion scheme that deprived the government of more than $20 million in taxes.

Attorney Dennis B. Evanson of Sandy, Utah, was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, tax evasion and assisting in the filing of false tax returns charges. This lawyer used false documentation for fictitious currency transaction losses, false insurance expense deductions and bogus capital losses, all for the purpose of fraudulently offsetting taxable income for clients.

According to the government, the scheme relied in part on offshore companies, offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Nevis, services of offshore nominees, and opinion letters that purportedly authorized the fraudulent transactions.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

The Medicare program depends on the integrity of “trusted contractors” to process and pay Medicare claims. This past week, one of those “trusted contractors” operating in New Jersey, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, agreed to pay the federal government $2.1 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee operated as the primary Medicare Part A Fiscal Intermediary for New Jersey, under the name “Riverbend Government Benefit Administrators.”

The government had alleged that BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee “failed to adjust the cost-to-charge ratios for many New Jersey hospitals in a timely manner between 2000 and 2002 that resulted in the payment of excessive ‘outlier payments’ by Medicare program to those medical facilities.” The “outlier payments” are supplemental reimbursements to hospitals in situations when the cost of care is unusually high, which are paid “to ensure that hospitals possess the incentive to treat inpatients whose care requires unusually high costs,” as described in the government’s announcement.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

The wave of new State False Claims Acts has generated a flurry of letters from the Office of Inspector General of HHS this past week. OIG has now “approved” the new State False Claims Acts of California, Georgia, Indiana, and Rhode Island, but has “disapproved” those of six other states: Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

As this whistleblower lawyer blog has written about extensively, Congress has created financial incentives for states to enact their own versions of the highly successful qui tam whistleblower law, the False Claims Act, which is the government’s primary tool for combating fraud directed at taxpayer funds.

Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, each state that has a False Claims Act that is at least as effective in facilitating and rewarding qui tam actions as the Federal False Claims Act in protecting state Medicaid funds is entitled to a greater share of fraud recoveries from those actions.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

On July 31, Congress enacted a new Whistleblower Law designed to promote consumer product safety. The new federal legislation specifically was enacted to protect public and private sector employees who disclose to their employers, a regulatory agency or a state Attorney General any perceived violation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The law also provides protection for employees who refuse to participate in violations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act. Obviously, the purpose of this legislation was to protect employees who, in good faith, report potential safety problems connected with consumer products and to prevent retaliation against such an employee either in the private or public sector. Any employee who, in good faith, reports or discloses potential violations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act, is protected from retaliation by this legislature.

Under the new whistleblower legislation, an employee who believes that they have been unlawfully retaliated against for disclosing a violation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act must file with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA) a complaint of retaliation within 180 days of becoming aware of the retaliatory action. Afterwards, on an administrative basis, OHSA will conduct an investigation. Either the employee or the employer can request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and can appeal an adverse decision to the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board. If the Department of Labor has not issued a final decision within 210 days after the filing of the complaint, an employee may remove the complaint to Federal Court and ask for a jury trial.

Under the new Act’s provisions, in order to deter employers from retaliating against employees who, in good faith, report violations or potential violations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act, a prevailing employee who has been unlawfully retaliated against will be entitled, among other things, to reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages and litigation costs including reasonable attorney’s fees.

Continue reading →

Published on: | by

As another step toward the further development of the new IRS Whistleblower Program, our friends at the IRS Large and Midsize Business Division (LMSB) in Lower Manhattan have announced a three-step process for IRS Whistleblower claims that are eligible for the new “rewards” authorized by Congress in December 2006.

IRS Commisioner Frank Ng describes it as a “process for analyzing informant information and disseminating it to the field” for claims with at least $2 million in question, which is the threshold amount for whistleblowers to be eligible to receive the new IRS whistleblower rewards of 15-30% of the government’s recovery.

The first step is the “initial receipt of information and the initial review of the claim from the informant [whistleblower],” primarily by the IRS Whistleblower Office.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
229 Peachtree St. NE #2500
Atlanta, GA 30303
Toll Free: (800) 228-9159Phone: (404) 658-9070

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Finch McCranie, LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design