Jesse Drucker, writing for Bloomberg, reported a complicated transfer pricing scheme involving Forest Lab's Lexapro. The strategy shifts dollars from American sales of the blockbuster drug to other countries where tax rates are lower than in the US. Drucker estimates that corporate transfer pricing strategies, like this one involving Lexapro, enable thousands of companies to avoid paying $60 billion per year in US tax revenue.
Transfer pricing schemes involve the overpricing of imports and/or the underpricing of exports between related companies in different countries for the purpose of transferring profits or revenue out of the United States in order to evade taxes. The profits and revenue end up in a country that has a lower corporate tax rate than the US.
US Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has been a long time foe of transfer pricing schemes and has been quoted as saying they are "the corporate equivalent of the secret offshore accounts of individual tax dodgers." Levin introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act in March 2009. The bill allows US tax and securities agencies to treat non-publicly traded offshore entities as being controlled by the US taxpayer who formed them, sent or received assets to them, or benefited from them, unless the taxpayer proves otherwise. Despite strong support from the Obama administration, the bill has yet to pass. Critics of the bill say transfer pricing requires a mult-lateral fix, and the bill's US-centric focus will likely not be successful in remedying the problem.
In the meantime, reports Drucker, Forest Laboratories is employing a "Double Irish" corporate structure to transfer some of the revenue from Lexapro to Ireland, Amsterdam, and Bermuda to show profit from Lexapro in those countries as opposed to the United States, the country where the product is being purchased. Tax savings for Forest are significant. If the profit from Lexapro is reported as US income, the profit could be subject to the US corporate tax rate of 35 percent. In Ireland, the corporate tax rate is between 10% and 12.5%.
To read Jesse Drucker's article, click here.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
K&M Represents Whistleblower in $520 Million AstraZeneca Settlement
AstraZeneca has agreed to pay $520 million in civil fines, penalties, and damages to settle allegations that the company defrauded Medicare, Medicaid, and other government-funded health care programs in connection with its marketing and promotional practices for the blockbuster atypical antipsychotic Seroquel. This is the largest settlement of off-label marketing claims brought under the False Claims Act to date that involved civil-only fines. The $520 million settlement resolves a qui tam lawsuit filed by whistleblower Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, one of two relators to file a case. Dr. Kruszewski was represented by Brian Kenney and Tavy Deming of Kenney & McCafferty, along with William Leonard of Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel. For more information about the settlement, click here.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Not Fundamentally Designed to be Successful
"Not fundamentally designed to be successful." That's what the Inspector General's Office had to say in its March 2010 Assessment of the SEC's Bounty Program. OIG identified problems with the program when it released its August Report on the "Investigation of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernie Madoff's Ponzi Scheme." The latest report details the follow up investigation of the SEC's whistleblower program.
According to the OIG report, the SEC has had its bounty program in place for more than 20 years. The program provides for rewards to whistleblowers for reporting insider trading. The OIG found that the program was not recognized inside or outside of the SEC and that few applications had ever been received by the program.
Many of the recommendations that followed the OIG's findings appeared to basic, common sense management practices. For example, one recommendation is to keep some kind of file, whether it be hard copy or electronic, for each bounty application. The file, according to the OIG report, should contain, at minimum:
A bit of a concern is the recommendation that the SEC Bounty Program should incorporate "best practices" from the IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program. One hopes that that new SEC program would incorporate ideas from the latest incarnation of the tax fraud program under Director Stephen Whitlock and eschew past versions. Prior to Whitlock's leadership, the tax reward program showed similar problems to those currently capturing the attention of SEC watchers. While much improved in the last few years, the Service is still struggling to find lost complaints and improve communication with whistleblowers.
The SEC is charged with providing OIG with a written corrective action plan designed to address the recommendations. The plan should appear in late May.
According to the OIG report, the SEC has had its bounty program in place for more than 20 years. The program provides for rewards to whistleblowers for reporting insider trading. The OIG found that the program was not recognized inside or outside of the SEC and that few applications had ever been received by the program.
Many of the recommendations that followed the OIG's findings appeared to basic, common sense management practices. For example, one recommendation is to keep some kind of file, whether it be hard copy or electronic, for each bounty application. The file, according to the OIG report, should contain, at minimum:
- The bounty application
- Any correspondence with the whistleblower
- Documentation of how the whistleblower's information was utilized
- Documentation regarding any significant decisions made with regard to the claim
A bit of a concern is the recommendation that the SEC Bounty Program should incorporate "best practices" from the IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program. One hopes that that new SEC program would incorporate ideas from the latest incarnation of the tax fraud program under Director Stephen Whitlock and eschew past versions. Prior to Whitlock's leadership, the tax reward program showed similar problems to those currently capturing the attention of SEC watchers. While much improved in the last few years, the Service is still struggling to find lost complaints and improve communication with whistleblowers.
The SEC is charged with providing OIG with a written corrective action plan designed to address the recommendations. The plan should appear in late May.
Monday, April 5, 2010
SEC Whistleblower Program Proposals – Another dismal failure or real opportunity?
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd of Connecticut introduced a financial reform bill on March 15, 2010. The proposal includes a new whistleblower program to reward those who assist the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in its enforcement of securities violations, like violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The SEC already has a program in place to reward whistleblowers in insider trading programs. The existing program is widely regarded as a dismal failure, having paid only four rewards totaling only $67,570. In the last year, at least three proposals have been discussed to establish a new SEC whistleblower program, including the most recent Dodd proposal.
Dodd's bill proposes that whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to monetary sanctions would be paid between 10and 30 percent of any money the government collects that results from the information provided by the whistleblower. Whistleblowers would also receive rewards if their information leads to other successful "related actions," i.e. actions brought by other federal and state regulatory agencies, including the DOJ and foreign law enforcement agencies.
Most commentators watching the process feel that the final version of the new SEC program will be very similar to the IRS whistleblower rewards program. They expect the SEC program will include the IRS's one bite rule, for example, though the IRS itself appears to be moving away from full implementation of the civil investigation prohibition against talking to tax whistleblowers more than once. The Service's criminal division never adhered to the one bite rule, and now, the IRS civil division is embracing whistleblowers to a greater degree as well. It would be unfortunate if any new SEC whistleblower program blindly adopted IRS rules, like the one bite rule, without learning from the IRS's mistakes. The SEC has a dismal record with whistleblower incentive and protection programs. It would be best for the American people if any new SEC provision learned from, rather than repeated, the mistakes of other whistleblower programs.
The SEC already has a program in place to reward whistleblowers in insider trading programs. The existing program is widely regarded as a dismal failure, having paid only four rewards totaling only $67,570. In the last year, at least three proposals have been discussed to establish a new SEC whistleblower program, including the most recent Dodd proposal.
Dodd's bill proposes that whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to monetary sanctions would be paid between 10and 30 percent of any money the government collects that results from the information provided by the whistleblower. Whistleblowers would also receive rewards if their information leads to other successful "related actions," i.e. actions brought by other federal and state regulatory agencies, including the DOJ and foreign law enforcement agencies.
Most commentators watching the process feel that the final version of the new SEC program will be very similar to the IRS whistleblower rewards program. They expect the SEC program will include the IRS's one bite rule, for example, though the IRS itself appears to be moving away from full implementation of the civil investigation prohibition against talking to tax whistleblowers more than once. The Service's criminal division never adhered to the one bite rule, and now, the IRS civil division is embracing whistleblowers to a greater degree as well. It would be unfortunate if any new SEC whistleblower program blindly adopted IRS rules, like the one bite rule, without learning from the IRS's mistakes. The SEC has a dismal record with whistleblower incentive and protection programs. It would be best for the American people if any new SEC provision learned from, rather than repeated, the mistakes of other whistleblower programs.
Monday, January 11, 2010
IRS Makes Good: $5.5 Million Partial Payment to K&M Client
Philadelphia, PA/January 11, 2010. The IRS Whistleblower Office facilitated a partial payment of $5.5 million to a Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. whistleblower who reported tax fraud seven years ago. The payment is the first substantial payment to be made under the auspices of the IRS Whistleblower Office.
“We feel good about the positive changes that we’ve seen in the Whistleblowers Office in the last two years,” said lead partner Brian Kenney of Kenney & McCafferty. “Things are getting easier for tax whistleblowers who want to help the IRS recover money for the Treasury. We’re getting answers and results that three years ago would have been impossible to obtain. We expect that an additional payment will be made in this case within the next few months.”
The K&M tax whistleblower first contacted Brian Kenney eight years ago about a complex, international a stock and tax fraud scheme orchestrated by a overseas-based corporate conglomerate. As a result of the whistleblower coming forward the United States has recovered over $60 million in taxes, fines, and penalties. The K&M whistleblower’s identity remains confidential, consistent with provisions of the new IRS Rewards Program. In 2006, Senator Chuck Grassley championed legislation to incentivize tax whistleblowers to come forward with information to assist the Service in recovering tax dollars improperly withheld by taxpayers. The new IRS Rewards Program guarantees a percentage of the Service’s recovery to those who make meritorious claims. To improve the way the Service works with whistleblowers, the IRS formed a Whistleblowers Office to track whistleblower reports. Steven Whitlock became Director of the new Office three years ago.
Linda Stengle, K&M’s attorney assigned to the case, credits the Whistleblower Office for facilitating the reward. “Director Steven Whitlock has evolved the WO into a responsive, knowledgeable unit in just a short time. Dawn Applebaum, the Analyst assigned to the case, made the system work for our client here. Things happened quickly, after years and years of waiting.”
Kenney notes that the recent TIGTA report presented a dismal picture for would-be tax whistleblowers. The TIGTA report noted the Whistleblower Office lost claims, long delays, and duplicative record keeping systems resulted in a poor record for the fledgling Rewards Program. Under the old system, the lack of uniform oversight meant that whistleblowers had to wait as long as ten years to learn if they would receive any reward at all. Whistleblowers grew frustrated by bureaucratic snafus.
“A lot of the things noted in the TIGTA report are old news,” said Kenney. “We’ve been monitoring the situation very closely, and we’re impressed with the changes we’ve seen in the program. It’s much more efficient and effective than it was just a year ago. We’re optimistic.”
Brian Kenney’s optimism about whistleblower programs has led him to become one of the leading tax whistleblower attorneys in the country. Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. focuses on qui tam and tax whistleblower litigation. Its attorneys have recovered more than $4 billion for the government in False Claims Act and tax whistleblower cases. For more information, contact Linda Stengle at 610-940-0327.
“We feel good about the positive changes that we’ve seen in the Whistleblowers Office in the last two years,” said lead partner Brian Kenney of Kenney & McCafferty. “Things are getting easier for tax whistleblowers who want to help the IRS recover money for the Treasury. We’re getting answers and results that three years ago would have been impossible to obtain. We expect that an additional payment will be made in this case within the next few months.”
The K&M tax whistleblower first contacted Brian Kenney eight years ago about a complex, international a stock and tax fraud scheme orchestrated by a overseas-based corporate conglomerate. As a result of the whistleblower coming forward the United States has recovered over $60 million in taxes, fines, and penalties. The K&M whistleblower’s identity remains confidential, consistent with provisions of the new IRS Rewards Program. In 2006, Senator Chuck Grassley championed legislation to incentivize tax whistleblowers to come forward with information to assist the Service in recovering tax dollars improperly withheld by taxpayers. The new IRS Rewards Program guarantees a percentage of the Service’s recovery to those who make meritorious claims. To improve the way the Service works with whistleblowers, the IRS formed a Whistleblowers Office to track whistleblower reports. Steven Whitlock became Director of the new Office three years ago.
Linda Stengle, K&M’s attorney assigned to the case, credits the Whistleblower Office for facilitating the reward. “Director Steven Whitlock has evolved the WO into a responsive, knowledgeable unit in just a short time. Dawn Applebaum, the Analyst assigned to the case, made the system work for our client here. Things happened quickly, after years and years of waiting.”
Kenney notes that the recent TIGTA report presented a dismal picture for would-be tax whistleblowers. The TIGTA report noted the Whistleblower Office lost claims, long delays, and duplicative record keeping systems resulted in a poor record for the fledgling Rewards Program. Under the old system, the lack of uniform oversight meant that whistleblowers had to wait as long as ten years to learn if they would receive any reward at all. Whistleblowers grew frustrated by bureaucratic snafus.
“A lot of the things noted in the TIGTA report are old news,” said Kenney. “We’ve been monitoring the situation very closely, and we’re impressed with the changes we’ve seen in the program. It’s much more efficient and effective than it was just a year ago. We’re optimistic.”
Brian Kenney’s optimism about whistleblower programs has led him to become one of the leading tax whistleblower attorneys in the country. Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. focuses on qui tam and tax whistleblower litigation. Its attorneys have recovered more than $4 billion for the government in False Claims Act and tax whistleblower cases. For more information, contact Linda Stengle at 610-940-0327.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
2009 - The Year of the Ponzi Scheme Collapse
2009 was a bad year for Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, and Scott Rothstein. The government targeted all three as perpetrators of massive Ponzi schemes -a form of pyramid fraud that targets investors looking for a fast turnaround on their dollar. Unfortunately, thousands of investors also lost billions in 2009 as the pyramid schemes unraveled.
Ponzi schemes promise abnormally high or abnormally consistent returns that they cannot deliver. Returns do not come from any actual profit. Earlier investors are paid high returns generated from investments of later investors. If left to run indefinitely, the system inevitably collapses under its own weight because it never earns more than it is obligated to pay. It relies on a constant infusion of new investors to pay returns to the older investors.
As the Ponzi scheme collapses, one of four things will usually happen:
1. The fraudster will disappear and take all available investment dollars with him or her.
2. The fraudster will have difficulty paying the promised returns; investors will begin to panic, and the scheme will start to collapse under its own weight as revenue dries up.
3. The scheme is exposed by legal authorities.
4. External market forces cause investors to withdraw their funds, decreasing the revenue stream to the pyramid.
Ponzi schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant, who took in $15 million in fraudulent investments between 1919 and 1920. Charles Ponzi modernized an old fraud scam, previously referred to as "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" schemes.
"My business is simple," said Ponzi in his last interview. "It was the old game of robbing Peter to pay Paul. You would give me one hundred dollars and I would give you a note to pay you one-hundred-and-fifty dollars in three months. Usually I would redeem my note in 45 days. My notes became more valuable than American money... Then came trouble. The whole thing was broken."
In his 1857 novel, Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens described the "rob Peter to pay Paul" scheme. Commentators note an eery resemblance between Dickens's Mr. Merdle, the fraudster in Little Dorrit, and Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme resulted in his incarceration in 2009. Both were hailed as financial geniuses before being unmasked as thieves; both had wives who displayed their wealth openly and ostentatiously; both had legions of investors who wanted to entrust them with their dollars.
The Associated Press reports that Ponzi collapses in 2009 nearly quadrupled over those in 2008, deriving its numbers from counting criminal prosecutions and administrative actions taken at state and federal levels. AP states that 150 Ponzi schemes collapsed in 2009, compared with only about 40 in 2008.
The Madoff Ponzi scheme collapse has generated increased vigilance at the federal level, but the 2009 recession was more likely the driving force behind the collapse of these old style pyramid schemes. As dollars got tighter, investors withdrew their funds and wanted to put them into more conservative and safe investment options. Sources of new investors, and revenue, dry up, resulting in less money becoming available to pay off old investors. The pyramid collapses.
Most new federal cases have not yet resolved, and investigations are ongoing. The FBI opened 2100 securities fraud investigations in 2009, about 350 cases more than were opened in 2008. The SEC opened about 6% more investigations in 2009 than in 2008.
Ponzi schemes promise abnormally high or abnormally consistent returns that they cannot deliver. Returns do not come from any actual profit. Earlier investors are paid high returns generated from investments of later investors. If left to run indefinitely, the system inevitably collapses under its own weight because it never earns more than it is obligated to pay. It relies on a constant infusion of new investors to pay returns to the older investors.
As the Ponzi scheme collapses, one of four things will usually happen:
1. The fraudster will disappear and take all available investment dollars with him or her.
2. The fraudster will have difficulty paying the promised returns; investors will begin to panic, and the scheme will start to collapse under its own weight as revenue dries up.
3. The scheme is exposed by legal authorities.
4. External market forces cause investors to withdraw their funds, decreasing the revenue stream to the pyramid.
Ponzi schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant, who took in $15 million in fraudulent investments between 1919 and 1920. Charles Ponzi modernized an old fraud scam, previously referred to as "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" schemes.
"My business is simple," said Ponzi in his last interview. "It was the old game of robbing Peter to pay Paul. You would give me one hundred dollars and I would give you a note to pay you one-hundred-and-fifty dollars in three months. Usually I would redeem my note in 45 days. My notes became more valuable than American money... Then came trouble. The whole thing was broken."
In his 1857 novel, Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens described the "rob Peter to pay Paul" scheme. Commentators note an eery resemblance between Dickens's Mr. Merdle, the fraudster in Little Dorrit, and Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme resulted in his incarceration in 2009. Both were hailed as financial geniuses before being unmasked as thieves; both had wives who displayed their wealth openly and ostentatiously; both had legions of investors who wanted to entrust them with their dollars.
The Associated Press reports that Ponzi collapses in 2009 nearly quadrupled over those in 2008, deriving its numbers from counting criminal prosecutions and administrative actions taken at state and federal levels. AP states that 150 Ponzi schemes collapsed in 2009, compared with only about 40 in 2008.
The Madoff Ponzi scheme collapse has generated increased vigilance at the federal level, but the 2009 recession was more likely the driving force behind the collapse of these old style pyramid schemes. As dollars got tighter, investors withdrew their funds and wanted to put them into more conservative and safe investment options. Sources of new investors, and revenue, dry up, resulting in less money becoming available to pay off old investors. The pyramid collapses.
Most new federal cases have not yet resolved, and investigations are ongoing. The FBI opened 2100 securities fraud investigations in 2009, about 350 cases more than were opened in 2008. The SEC opened about 6% more investigations in 2009 than in 2008.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Kenney & McCafferty Assists Government in $112 million Omnicare Settlement
Kenney & McCafferty, P.C., co-represented one of the whistleblowers in the nation’s largest nursing home pharmacy and pharmaceutical False Claims Act settlement. The Department of Justice announced on November 3, 2009, that Defendants Omnicare and IVAX Pharmaceuticals would pay a total of $112 million to settle litigation initiated by whistleblowers.
The Department of Justice alleged that Omnicare solicited and/or paid four different types of kickbacks:
* First, DOJ alleged that Omnicare solicited and received kickbacks for recommending that physicians prescribe Risperdal to nursing home patients.
* Second, DOJ alleged that Omnicare paid kickbacks to nursing homes by providing them with consultant pharmacist services at below cost rates.
* Third, DOJ alleged that Omincare solicited an $8 million kickback for purchasing $50 million in drugs from IVAX.
* Fourth, DOJ alleged that Omnicare conspired with nursing home for Omnicare to pay the nursing home chains $50 million in exchange for the nursing homes to continue using Omnicare for pharmacy services.
Kickbacks, such as these, are illegal because they subvert the medical judgment of health professionals and result in unnecessary and often, dangerous, changes in medications for the patient. Whistleblowers in the pharmaceutical industry recognized the illegal activity and filed False Claims actions. False Claims Acts allow whistleblowers to report false claims by filing a sealed complaint in court. If the whistleblower prevails, he or she gets a percentage of the recovery, and the remainder returns to the government.
Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. specializes in qui tam and tax whistleblower litigation, and its attorneys have recovered more than $2 billion for the government in False Claims Act and tax whistleblower cases. For more information, visit K&M’s website, www.quitam-lawyer.com
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Estate Tax Fraud - Prime Area for Whistleblowers
Some commentators are noting that the recent prosecution of an individual for filing a false federal estate tax return may signal the Service's new "get tough" policy on estate and gift tax fraud. Prior to the Whistleblower Rewards Act of 2006, prosecutions in the area have been lean.
The recent criminal case involved a woman who was the executrix of her mother's estate. She admitted that she intentionally omitted assets worth $400,000 from the Form 706, the federal estate tax return. The executrix faces possible imprisonment, supervised release, and large fines and penalties.
Previously it was thought that the Service might be trying to adhere to the Bush administration's wishes that estate taxes simply disappear. While Bush supported the elimination of the estate tax entirely, administrative proposals met with little support. Some feel that the administration then decided to gut the ranks of IRS employees to de facto eliminate enforcement of estate tax collection. In March 2008, outraged IRS employees sounded off about the Agency's decision to terminate 157 of its 345 estate tax lawyers. The IRS itself had noted that 85 percent of the large taxable gifts it audited were fraudulent and intended to cheat the public. For every hour that the Service's estate tax lawyers work, they uncover an average of $2,200 in taxes that Americans worth $1 million or more illegally withheld from the government. The Service's estate tax attorneys uncover about $1.4 billion in lost tax revenues per year. While the Service appears to be recruiting again, it's unclear whether those lost, and profitable, estate attorneys will be restored to the IRS rolls.
Estate and gift tax claims present an area of opportunity for whistleblowers. With a decrease in IRS estate tax attorneys, the Service will need to increase its reliance on informants to point out fraudulently reported Form 706 claims. Old tax returns and appraisals can help. The more credible the claim, the more likely it will be that the Service will decide to devote resources to the claim's investigation.
If you believe you have a viable estate or gift tax evasion claim, call KEMY for a free assessment today.
The recent criminal case involved a woman who was the executrix of her mother's estate. She admitted that she intentionally omitted assets worth $400,000 from the Form 706, the federal estate tax return. The executrix faces possible imprisonment, supervised release, and large fines and penalties.
Previously it was thought that the Service might be trying to adhere to the Bush administration's wishes that estate taxes simply disappear. While Bush supported the elimination of the estate tax entirely, administrative proposals met with little support. Some feel that the administration then decided to gut the ranks of IRS employees to de facto eliminate enforcement of estate tax collection. In March 2008, outraged IRS employees sounded off about the Agency's decision to terminate 157 of its 345 estate tax lawyers. The IRS itself had noted that 85 percent of the large taxable gifts it audited were fraudulent and intended to cheat the public. For every hour that the Service's estate tax lawyers work, they uncover an average of $2,200 in taxes that Americans worth $1 million or more illegally withheld from the government. The Service's estate tax attorneys uncover about $1.4 billion in lost tax revenues per year. While the Service appears to be recruiting again, it's unclear whether those lost, and profitable, estate attorneys will be restored to the IRS rolls.
Estate and gift tax claims present an area of opportunity for whistleblowers. With a decrease in IRS estate tax attorneys, the Service will need to increase its reliance on informants to point out fraudulently reported Form 706 claims. Old tax returns and appraisals can help. The more credible the claim, the more likely it will be that the Service will decide to devote resources to the claim's investigation.
If you believe you have a viable estate or gift tax evasion claim, call KEMY for a free assessment today.
Friday, October 16, 2009
TIGTA Cites Deficiencies in Resolution of Whistleblower Claims
The Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a report entitled, "Deficiencies Exist in the Control and Timely Resolution of Whistleblower Claims." TIGTA assessed the IRS's implementation of the Whistleblower Office and the controls monitoring whistleblower claims. The report identified three general areas of problems:
1. Multiple inventory systems and inadequate procedures and processes result in ineffective control over Whistleblower claims;
2. Whistleblower claims are not resolved in a timely manner; and
3. The law's lack of employee protection against retaliation places whistleblowers at risk for reporting tax fraud.
The life of a whistleblower claim can be extraordinarily long when compared to most any other kind of agency action. TIGTA noted that the Whistleblower Office recently paid an award on a claim 15 years after the claim was received. Generally, the Whistleblower Office will tell claimants that payments could take 10 years, assuming the claim is successful at all.
TIGTA identified improper delays in notifying claimants when their claims were rejected. The most common reason for rejecting a whistleblower claims was that the targeted taxpayer was already under investigation by the Service. TIGTA estimated that once the IRS made a decision to deny a claim, it took 6.5 months to notify a claimant that his or her request for reward had been rejected. Twelve claimants had not been notified by the time of the TIGTA review, though the Service had rejected the claim 290 days before.
A significant obstacle to timely resolution has been the Service's multiple inventory systems for tracking claims. The Whistleblower Office uses three inventory systems to track rewards claims currently. The systems did not accurately track information about claims, and it was frequently inconsistent in its reports of claims. One problem has been incorrect claim receipt dates. The Service has been working on a single inventory system, called E-TRAK, and hopes that it can capture claim information accurately from the multiple systems currently in place and transfer them to one inventory mechanism for all 7623(b) claims. The Whistleblower Office expects this single inventory system to be fully in place sometime in 2010.
TIGTA made a number of recommendations, including one to add retaliation protection to the statute. Several IRS analysts had reported that whistleblowers requested protection from the targeted taxpayers but the IRS had no way to respond. TIGTA recommends that the legislation be amended to provide specific relief to whistleblowers who become victims of retaliation.
1. Multiple inventory systems and inadequate procedures and processes result in ineffective control over Whistleblower claims;
2. Whistleblower claims are not resolved in a timely manner; and
3. The law's lack of employee protection against retaliation places whistleblowers at risk for reporting tax fraud.
The life of a whistleblower claim can be extraordinarily long when compared to most any other kind of agency action. TIGTA noted that the Whistleblower Office recently paid an award on a claim 15 years after the claim was received. Generally, the Whistleblower Office will tell claimants that payments could take 10 years, assuming the claim is successful at all.
TIGTA identified improper delays in notifying claimants when their claims were rejected. The most common reason for rejecting a whistleblower claims was that the targeted taxpayer was already under investigation by the Service. TIGTA estimated that once the IRS made a decision to deny a claim, it took 6.5 months to notify a claimant that his or her request for reward had been rejected. Twelve claimants had not been notified by the time of the TIGTA review, though the Service had rejected the claim 290 days before.
A significant obstacle to timely resolution has been the Service's multiple inventory systems for tracking claims. The Whistleblower Office uses three inventory systems to track rewards claims currently. The systems did not accurately track information about claims, and it was frequently inconsistent in its reports of claims. One problem has been incorrect claim receipt dates. The Service has been working on a single inventory system, called E-TRAK, and hopes that it can capture claim information accurately from the multiple systems currently in place and transfer them to one inventory mechanism for all 7623(b) claims. The Whistleblower Office expects this single inventory system to be fully in place sometime in 2010.
TIGTA made a number of recommendations, including one to add retaliation protection to the statute. Several IRS analysts had reported that whistleblowers requested protection from the targeted taxpayers but the IRS had no way to respond. TIGTA recommends that the legislation be amended to provide specific relief to whistleblowers who become victims of retaliation.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Whistleblower Office Reports $22 Million Paid in 2008
The IRS has yet to pay on any claims under the 2006 IRC 7623(b) mandatory reward program enacted in December 2006, according to its annual report to Congress issued earlier this week. Claims paid in 2008 for the discretionary rewards program (IRC 7623(a)) exceeded $22 million.
The Whistleblower Office has seen an increase in amounts collected and awards paid since FY 2004. That year, the Service paid out more than $4.5 million in awards. In FY 2005, the Service paid whistleblowers $7.6 million. Award payouts spiked in 2006 at just over $24 million. In 2007, the amount paid dropped to $13.6 million, with in increase in 2008 to more than $22 million.
The Whistleblower Office reminded Congress that the 7623(b) program represented a significant change for the Service, requiring the Whistleblower Office to "tool up." For example, during 2008, the Office staff grew from 4 to 14. Currently, ten analysts examine and shepherd meritorious whistleblower claims through the Service's criminal and civil investigation divisions.
Interesting was the Service's report on month by month submissions to the program. In October 2007, the Whistleblower Office received 16 submissions. In September 2008, the Office received 136 submissions. Submissions peaked in July of 2008 with a record 204 claims submitted, identifying 243 alleged fraudsters.
The Whistleblower Office laid out FY 2009 priorities in the report. The four areas of emphasis are 1) revise and update published guidance; 2) develop baseline information; 3) enhance communications; and 4) build program stability.
KEMY maintains regular contact with the IRS Whistleblower Office and monitors changes in whistleblower reward program policy. If you believe you have a potential IRS reward claim, contact KEMY for a free consult today.
The Whistleblower Office has seen an increase in amounts collected and awards paid since FY 2004. That year, the Service paid out more than $4.5 million in awards. In FY 2005, the Service paid whistleblowers $7.6 million. Award payouts spiked in 2006 at just over $24 million. In 2007, the amount paid dropped to $13.6 million, with in increase in 2008 to more than $22 million.
The Whistleblower Office reminded Congress that the 7623(b) program represented a significant change for the Service, requiring the Whistleblower Office to "tool up." For example, during 2008, the Office staff grew from 4 to 14. Currently, ten analysts examine and shepherd meritorious whistleblower claims through the Service's criminal and civil investigation divisions.
Interesting was the Service's report on month by month submissions to the program. In October 2007, the Whistleblower Office received 16 submissions. In September 2008, the Office received 136 submissions. Submissions peaked in July of 2008 with a record 204 claims submitted, identifying 243 alleged fraudsters.
The Whistleblower Office laid out FY 2009 priorities in the report. The four areas of emphasis are 1) revise and update published guidance; 2) develop baseline information; 3) enhance communications; and 4) build program stability.
KEMY maintains regular contact with the IRS Whistleblower Office and monitors changes in whistleblower reward program policy. If you believe you have a potential IRS reward claim, contact KEMY for a free consult today.
Waiving the Privilege - Tax Accrual Work Papers
Have you shared tax accrual work papers with an independent outside auditor? If so, you've waived your privilege to keep those papers from the Internal Revenue Service.
Many tax practitioners have been following the tumultuous progression of the Textron case, in which the First Circuit decided, en banc, to side with the IRS. Textron fought an IRS summons on four grounds - 1) the summons lacked a legitimate purpose; 2) the tax accrual work papers were protected by attorney-client privilege; 3) the papers were protected by tax practitioner privilege; and 4) the papers were protected by the work product doctrine.
The district court found that though the papers were prepared by attorneys, Textron waived its attorney-client privilege when it presented those documents to its independent auditor. Waiver of attorney client privilege occurs when the client opts to share the information with a third party. When shared with an independent third party, such as an independent auditor, the court views the information as no longer protected by the narrow confines of the attorney-client privilege doctrine. The waiver of attorney client privilege by Textron suffered no further scrutiny, but other aspects of Textron's argument temporarily gained some ground within the First Circuit.
The lower court agreed with Textron that the tax accrual work papers were protected by the work product doctrine, a privilege intended to prevent premature disclosure of legal strategy. Concluding the papers were protected by the work product doctrine, the lower court ruled that Textron did not have to provide the papers to the IRS. The IRS disagreed.
Appeals ensued. The First Circuit's Appellate Panel agreed with the lower court, and then the First Circuit, en banc, vacated both lower court decisions. The en banc appeal focused on the narrow question of whether the documents were protected by the work product doctrine and concluded they were not. The First Circuit reasoned that the papers were written in accord with ordinary business practices, and though they described the hotly litigated issue of SILOs, they were not written "in anticipation of litigation." As such, Textron's documents were not protected by the work product doctrine, and Textron had to provide them to the IRS.
Only two Circuits, the First and the Fifth, have addressed work product protection for tax audit work papers; Textron is the most recent. It reflects a change in the Service's long standing history of restraint on requesting tax accrual work papers. Large scale fraud activity has captured the attention of the courts and resulted in an erosion of legal privileges generally. The courts are requiring documents to be provided to fraud investigation entities and protecting only very narrow types of information from judicial and opponent review.
KEMY is up to date on the changing law and its impact on tax work papers. If you have access to legal tax papers and do not know whether or not they can be provided to the IRS in pursuit of uncovering fraud, call KEMY for a free consult today.
Many tax practitioners have been following the tumultuous progression of the Textron case, in which the First Circuit decided, en banc, to side with the IRS. Textron fought an IRS summons on four grounds - 1) the summons lacked a legitimate purpose; 2) the tax accrual work papers were protected by attorney-client privilege; 3) the papers were protected by tax practitioner privilege; and 4) the papers were protected by the work product doctrine.
The district court found that though the papers were prepared by attorneys, Textron waived its attorney-client privilege when it presented those documents to its independent auditor. Waiver of attorney client privilege occurs when the client opts to share the information with a third party. When shared with an independent third party, such as an independent auditor, the court views the information as no longer protected by the narrow confines of the attorney-client privilege doctrine. The waiver of attorney client privilege by Textron suffered no further scrutiny, but other aspects of Textron's argument temporarily gained some ground within the First Circuit.
The lower court agreed with Textron that the tax accrual work papers were protected by the work product doctrine, a privilege intended to prevent premature disclosure of legal strategy. Concluding the papers were protected by the work product doctrine, the lower court ruled that Textron did not have to provide the papers to the IRS. The IRS disagreed.
Appeals ensued. The First Circuit's Appellate Panel agreed with the lower court, and then the First Circuit, en banc, vacated both lower court decisions. The en banc appeal focused on the narrow question of whether the documents were protected by the work product doctrine and concluded they were not. The First Circuit reasoned that the papers were written in accord with ordinary business practices, and though they described the hotly litigated issue of SILOs, they were not written "in anticipation of litigation." As such, Textron's documents were not protected by the work product doctrine, and Textron had to provide them to the IRS.
Only two Circuits, the First and the Fifth, have addressed work product protection for tax audit work papers; Textron is the most recent. It reflects a change in the Service's long standing history of restraint on requesting tax accrual work papers. Large scale fraud activity has captured the attention of the courts and resulted in an erosion of legal privileges generally. The courts are requiring documents to be provided to fraud investigation entities and protecting only very narrow types of information from judicial and opponent review.
KEMY is up to date on the changing law and its impact on tax work papers. If you have access to legal tax papers and do not know whether or not they can be provided to the IRS in pursuit of uncovering fraud, call KEMY for a free consult today.
Friday, September 18, 2009
UBS Tells Clients to Get an Attorney
Swiss bank UBS sent a letter on September 10, 2009, to several of its US clients warning that their undisclosed income in Switzerland may be reported to the United States Internal Revenue Service. UBS told US clients to appoint a Swiss attorney to represent them or the Swiss government would appoint one for them.
As part of the recent settlement between the United States and UBS, UBS will reveal the identities of 4,450 US account holders that UBS believes have failed to pay US taxes by hiding assets in the Swiss banking system. The settlement resulted from a lawsuit filed by the United States seeking disclosure of all 52,000 account holders. The Swiss government became involved to protect its banking industry and assisted in negotiating the compromise. The international lawsuit against UBS is the second case this year involving undisclosed foreign assets. In February, UBS pled guilty to criminal tax evasion and disclosed 250 names. The two cases will only yield 4,700 US account holders out of 52,000, but those revealed are anticipated to be the largest UBS violators of the IRS tax laws.
Under the settlement agreement, the Swiss have 360 days to process the 4,450 accounts before the names will be released to the United States. UBS account holders who have been targeted for disclosure may appeal the disclosure decision to the Swiss Federal Administrative Court before the information is submitted to the United States. The Swiss govenment has appointed 5 temporary judges to handle approximately 500 anticipated appeals of the bank's disclosure decision. The decision of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court will be final.
In the meantime, record numbers of offshore account holders are taking advantage of a time limited IRS voluntary disclosure period, hoping to reduce their exposure to back taxes and a reduced fine with no criminal penalty. The IRS now averages an unprecedented 500 voluntary disclosures per week. The deadline for voluntary disclosure is September 23, 2009.
Sadly, there are still thousands and thousands of offshore account holders who will not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service, either voluntarily or through the UBS settlement. Those with information about tax evasion and/or tax underpayment can contact KEMY to learn if that information could qualify for a reward from the IRS.
As part of the recent settlement between the United States and UBS, UBS will reveal the identities of 4,450 US account holders that UBS believes have failed to pay US taxes by hiding assets in the Swiss banking system. The settlement resulted from a lawsuit filed by the United States seeking disclosure of all 52,000 account holders. The Swiss government became involved to protect its banking industry and assisted in negotiating the compromise. The international lawsuit against UBS is the second case this year involving undisclosed foreign assets. In February, UBS pled guilty to criminal tax evasion and disclosed 250 names. The two cases will only yield 4,700 US account holders out of 52,000, but those revealed are anticipated to be the largest UBS violators of the IRS tax laws.
Under the settlement agreement, the Swiss have 360 days to process the 4,450 accounts before the names will be released to the United States. UBS account holders who have been targeted for disclosure may appeal the disclosure decision to the Swiss Federal Administrative Court before the information is submitted to the United States. The Swiss govenment has appointed 5 temporary judges to handle approximately 500 anticipated appeals of the bank's disclosure decision. The decision of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court will be final.
In the meantime, record numbers of offshore account holders are taking advantage of a time limited IRS voluntary disclosure period, hoping to reduce their exposure to back taxes and a reduced fine with no criminal penalty. The IRS now averages an unprecedented 500 voluntary disclosures per week. The deadline for voluntary disclosure is September 23, 2009.
Sadly, there are still thousands and thousands of offshore account holders who will not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service, either voluntarily or through the UBS settlement. Those with information about tax evasion and/or tax underpayment can contact KEMY to learn if that information could qualify for a reward from the IRS.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
UBS Tax Evasion Cases To Get Special Scrutiny by Elite IRS Auditors
The IRS posted internal job listings recently for a newly created office within its Large and Mid-Size Business division. The Service is looking for auditors experienced in working with international tax treaties and complex cross-border corporate structures. The focus? Wealthy Americans who hid their assets in UBS accounts.
The Service is gearing up for an anticipated 10,000 new tax evasion cases that should result from the UBS settlement and the current off shore income tax amnesty program, set to end on September 23. Wealthy Americans with off shore holdings are scrambling for last minute tax advice, and hundreds are taking part in the IRS's amnesty program.
As part of a settlement, UBS, the United Bank of Switzerland, agreed on August 19, to turn over 4,450 names of its wealthiest US account holders who are the most likely to be engaging in tax evasion. UBS has 52,000 American account holders, and the agreement arose from litigation filed by the United States government to get access to the secret Swiss bank account information. UBS will give information about the 4,450 accounts to the Swiss government, which will screen the information and decide what should be forwarded to the United States.
The new IRS global high-wealth industry group will be one of six industry-specific sectors within the IRS's Large and Mid-Size Business division. IRS spokesman Frank Keith remarked that the establishment of the global high-wealth industry group was the first step in the IRS's long term enforcement strategy. Those selected will be the most experienced IRS auditors in dealing with global entities.
The Service is gearing up for an anticipated 10,000 new tax evasion cases that should result from the UBS settlement and the current off shore income tax amnesty program, set to end on September 23. Wealthy Americans with off shore holdings are scrambling for last minute tax advice, and hundreds are taking part in the IRS's amnesty program.
As part of a settlement, UBS, the United Bank of Switzerland, agreed on August 19, to turn over 4,450 names of its wealthiest US account holders who are the most likely to be engaging in tax evasion. UBS has 52,000 American account holders, and the agreement arose from litigation filed by the United States government to get access to the secret Swiss bank account information. UBS will give information about the 4,450 accounts to the Swiss government, which will screen the information and decide what should be forwarded to the United States.
The new IRS global high-wealth industry group will be one of six industry-specific sectors within the IRS's Large and Mid-Size Business division. IRS spokesman Frank Keith remarked that the establishment of the global high-wealth industry group was the first step in the IRS's long term enforcement strategy. Those selected will be the most experienced IRS auditors in dealing with global entities.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Record Pfizer Settlement for $2.3 Billion - Tip of the Iceberg?
The morning of the announcement of the $2.3 billion Pfizer settlement, a few hours before the seal was lifted, we received an emailed NY Times article about a pharmaceutical company's plans for off label marketing of a major anti depressant.
The seal was lifted, and the Department of Justice issued its press release at 10:30 AM. Congratulations poored in; reporters called; interviews were given. At about 4:00 PM, commentators began to point out that pharmaceutical manufacturers view settlements like Pfizer's as merely a "cost of doing business," and the financial penalty akin to "hitting a mule with a 2x4." KEMY agrees that the recoveries to date for off label marketing are probably the tip of the iceberg. Off label marketing of drugs is big business, and big pharma reaps immense profits from off label prescriptions.
KEMY is well aware that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to engage in off label marketing of drugs, with serious ramifications. In addition to the misspent public dollars for Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, off label prescriptions raise grave safety concerns. For example, sales reps targeted kids for prescriptions of Geodon, and many parents blindly followed their doctors' recommendations to put their children on the drug. Sadly, the situation is not unusual. We know of people who have died and kids who are suffering because they were the unfortunate victims of an off label marketing campaign.
The Pfizer settlement is particularly gratifying because it raises awareness about the often overlooked mental health population. The public continues to stigmatize those with mental health issues, and one of the by products of this stigmatization is poor health care. Pills are pushed on very vulnerable people who are often desperate to feel better. Many of these same folks receive Medicare or Medicaid, so public dollars and personal safety are at considerable risk. KEMY is very proud to have worked with the government to address this important aspect of health care.
The seal was lifted, and the Department of Justice issued its press release at 10:30 AM. Congratulations poored in; reporters called; interviews were given. At about 4:00 PM, commentators began to point out that pharmaceutical manufacturers view settlements like Pfizer's as merely a "cost of doing business," and the financial penalty akin to "hitting a mule with a 2x4." KEMY agrees that the recoveries to date for off label marketing are probably the tip of the iceberg. Off label marketing of drugs is big business, and big pharma reaps immense profits from off label prescriptions.
KEMY is well aware that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to engage in off label marketing of drugs, with serious ramifications. In addition to the misspent public dollars for Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, off label prescriptions raise grave safety concerns. For example, sales reps targeted kids for prescriptions of Geodon, and many parents blindly followed their doctors' recommendations to put their children on the drug. Sadly, the situation is not unusual. We know of people who have died and kids who are suffering because they were the unfortunate victims of an off label marketing campaign.
The Pfizer settlement is particularly gratifying because it raises awareness about the often overlooked mental health population. The public continues to stigmatize those with mental health issues, and one of the by products of this stigmatization is poor health care. Pills are pushed on very vulnerable people who are often desperate to feel better. Many of these same folks receive Medicare or Medicaid, so public dollars and personal safety are at considerable risk. KEMY is very proud to have worked with the government to address this important aspect of health care.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
KEMY Represents Whistleblower in $2.3 Billion Settlement
Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, M.D., came to KEMY with grave concerns about off label marketing of Geodon, an anti-psychotic, targeting children. Geodon is approved to treat only patients ages 18-65 diagnosed with schizophrenia or acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The Harrisburg psychiatrist had noticed that Geodon was being systematically marketed for unapproved uses and to children. KEMY attorneys Brian Kenney and Tavy Deming agreed to work to correct the problem.
Today, as part of a record settlement involving Geodon and other drugs, Pfizer agreed to plead guilty to criminal conduct and to pay more than $2 billion in criminal and civil fines, penalties, and damages. To read KEMY's press release, click here.
Geodon is FDA-approved to treat only patients ages 18-65 diagnosed with schizophrenia or acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. According to KEMY’s lead partner, Brian Kenney, “Pfizer targeted pediatrics and adolescents to expand off-label use and maintained on its payroll an army of more than 250 child psychiatrists nationwide.” Kenney continued, "The purpose and intent of paying so many child psychiatrists is clear – to gain a foothold within the fastest growing market for antipsychotics – children. The practice of expansive off-label use is dangerous, particularly in children because the drug has not been evaluated for its safety for the unique physiological make up of children."
KEMY’s whistleblower complaint led to a national investigation into Geodon. The federal investigation into Pfizer’s Geodon marketing practices was conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the direction of U.S. Attorney Michael Levy, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marilyn May and Assistant U.S. Attorney Charlene Keller Fullmer. Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Bob Patten led the investigation on behalf of the states and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (“NAMFCU”).
According to Kenney, Pfizer’s switching campaign “endangered patients by ignoring or materially understating Geodon’s serious, and even life threatening, side effects.”
Sadly, industry watchers say that large settlements are seen by the drug companies as merely a cost of doing business. Off label marketing of anti-psychotics, anti depressants, anti convulsants, and stimulants to children continues to reap big financial rewards for pharmaceutical companies, despite the safety risks. Children today are being highly medicated with drugs that have only been tested on adults. These drugs have serious side effects and can harm children. If you know of off label marketing targeting children, call KEMY today.
Today, as part of a record settlement involving Geodon and other drugs, Pfizer agreed to plead guilty to criminal conduct and to pay more than $2 billion in criminal and civil fines, penalties, and damages. To read KEMY's press release, click here.
Geodon is FDA-approved to treat only patients ages 18-65 diagnosed with schizophrenia or acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. According to KEMY’s lead partner, Brian Kenney, “Pfizer targeted pediatrics and adolescents to expand off-label use and maintained on its payroll an army of more than 250 child psychiatrists nationwide.” Kenney continued, "The purpose and intent of paying so many child psychiatrists is clear – to gain a foothold within the fastest growing market for antipsychotics – children. The practice of expansive off-label use is dangerous, particularly in children because the drug has not been evaluated for its safety for the unique physiological make up of children."
KEMY’s whistleblower complaint led to a national investigation into Geodon. The federal investigation into Pfizer’s Geodon marketing practices was conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the direction of U.S. Attorney Michael Levy, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marilyn May and Assistant U.S. Attorney Charlene Keller Fullmer. Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Bob Patten led the investigation on behalf of the states and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (“NAMFCU”).
According to Kenney, Pfizer’s switching campaign “endangered patients by ignoring or materially understating Geodon’s serious, and even life threatening, side effects.”
Sadly, industry watchers say that large settlements are seen by the drug companies as merely a cost of doing business. Off label marketing of anti-psychotics, anti depressants, anti convulsants, and stimulants to children continues to reap big financial rewards for pharmaceutical companies, despite the safety risks. Children today are being highly medicated with drugs that have only been tested on adults. These drugs have serious side effects and can harm children. If you know of off label marketing targeting children, call KEMY today.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Mortgage Fraud Trends
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) reports mortgage fraud trends based upon Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by money service businesses, like banks. Money Service Businesses must file a SAR when it knows or suspects that funds came from illegal activity, a particular transaction is structured in such a way to evade reporting requirements or appears to serve no lawful purpose, or the money service business is being used to facilitate criminal activity. FinCEN analyzes SARs data and uses it to identify vulnerabilities in financial systems, like the mortgage industry.
Currently, FinCEN targets the following trends in mortgage fraud:
1. Mortgage brokers initiating fraudulent loan practices.
2. Fraudulent appraisals being used as a basis for flipping.
3. Licensed appraiser identity theft.
4. Cashing out of refinance loans.
5. Fraudulent statements of income, including low or no document loans.
6. Home equity lines of credit.
The specific types of activities that "red flagged" and prompted the SAR filing included:
1. Misrepresentation of income/assets/debts.
2. Forged/fraudulent documents.
3. Occupancy fraud.
4. Appraisal fraud.
5. ID fraud.
6. Straw buyers.
7. ID theft.
8. Flipping.
Participants in the suspected fraud included appraisers, borrowers, builders, correspondent lenders, inside loan officers, investors, mortgage brokers, realtors, sellers, and those who provide settlement services, including attorneys and notaries.
While money service businesses file thousands of SARs a year, federal investigator follow up is minimal. One SARs filer reported that in all his years of filing SARs, he's only seen the government follow up on SARs five to ten times. He suggests that prosecutions resulting from SARs are minimal when compared to the large numbers of suspicious activities being reported every year.
The poor follow up on SARs filings demonstrates another reason why those with direct knowledge of fraud should report that information via a whistleblower claim. The government, even when it receives a report of suspicious activity, is unlikely to ensure the fraud is stopped.
Currently, FinCEN targets the following trends in mortgage fraud:
1. Mortgage brokers initiating fraudulent loan practices.
2. Fraudulent appraisals being used as a basis for flipping.
3. Licensed appraiser identity theft.
4. Cashing out of refinance loans.
5. Fraudulent statements of income, including low or no document loans.
6. Home equity lines of credit.
The specific types of activities that "red flagged" and prompted the SAR filing included:
1. Misrepresentation of income/assets/debts.
2. Forged/fraudulent documents.
3. Occupancy fraud.
4. Appraisal fraud.
5. ID fraud.
6. Straw buyers.
7. ID theft.
8. Flipping.
Participants in the suspected fraud included appraisers, borrowers, builders, correspondent lenders, inside loan officers, investors, mortgage brokers, realtors, sellers, and those who provide settlement services, including attorneys and notaries.
While money service businesses file thousands of SARs a year, federal investigator follow up is minimal. One SARs filer reported that in all his years of filing SARs, he's only seen the government follow up on SARs five to ten times. He suggests that prosecutions resulting from SARs are minimal when compared to the large numbers of suspicious activities being reported every year.
The poor follow up on SARs filings demonstrates another reason why those with direct knowledge of fraud should report that information via a whistleblower claim. The government, even when it receives a report of suspicious activity, is unlikely to ensure the fraud is stopped.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
IRS Will Get 4450 Names From UBS
Swiss newspapers report that the IRS will get up to 4,450 names of UBS clients as a result of the settlement of the legal battle between the United States, Switzerland, and UBS, the Swiss banking company. At stake were the secret identities of 52,000 US citizens who held deposits in UBS. Some commentators are pronouncing the deal as "the beginning of the end" of the famous Swiss secret accounting system.
Earlier this year, UBS faced criminal charges in the United States for assisting in tax evasion and disclosed 250 client identities as part of a settlement. The additional 4,450 names to be disclosed are linked to accounts in which Americans are believed to have hidden as much as $18 billion in income from the IRS. Swiss newspapers report that US clients face up to $3.7 billion in back taxes and penalties.
Switzerland today sold its investment in UBS and earned 1.2 billion Swiss francs for its citizenry. Switzerland said yesterday that UBS's recent gains and the US tax deal have helped stabilize the bank enough for the Swiss government to withdraw. Switzerland, like several other European nations, was forced to take partial ownership in the bank during Europe's recent financial crisis. The Swiss government reported it earned a return of 30% annually on the UBS investment.
More than 47,000 American citizens will remain undisclosed and could continue to hold deposits in UBS. Some predict that wealthy clients will move their Swiss accounts to new tax havens, like Singapore, because of the breach in the secret Swiss banking system.
Switzerland today sold its investment in UBS and earned 1.2 billion Swiss francs for its citizenry. Switzerland said yesterday that UBS's recent gains and the US tax deal have helped stabilize the bank enough for the Swiss government to withdraw. Switzerland, like several other European nations, was forced to take partial ownership in the bank during Europe's recent financial crisis. The Swiss government reported it earned a return of 30% annually on the UBS investment.
Monday, August 17, 2009
47,000 Potential Claims? Only 5000 UBS Names to be Released
Two Swiss newspapers are reporting that UBS has agreed to release 4500 to 5000 names of its US clients in the recent settlement agreement between the United States and the Swiss bank. The United States had gone to federal court seeking to force UBS to identify its 52,000 United States citizens, many of whom are thought to be committing tax fraud by hiding assets in secret accounts.
NZZ am Sonntag, one of the weekly newspapers, reports that the agreement was grounded on a 1996 US/Swiss tax agreement, allowing the Swiss cabinet to sign off on the deal without having to seek approval through the Swiss parliament. The 1996 agreement obliges Switzerland to provide the US with assistance in criminal prosecutions for tax evasion. NZZ says small accounts would not be reported, and account holders threatened with disclosure would have the right to challenge disclosure in Swiss courts.
Under another agreement earlier this year, UBS paid $780 million to settle criminal charges in the US, and it disclosed information on 250 United States clients. The fourth prosecution of a UBS client ended with a guilty plea on Friday, August 14. Malibu businessman John McCarthy admitted that he transferred at least one million dollars into secret UBS accounts over a five year period to avoid paying US taxes.
Earlier reports stated that the IRS would consider the UBS litigation a failure if UBS did not disclose at least 10,000 names; unofficially, now, all parties are describing the agreement as a success.
Approximately 47,000 United States citizens will continue to enjoy secret Swiss accounts. Whistleblowers should work to identify which of these account holders are hiding their assets to reduce their tax obligations. If you know of a United States citizen who is hiding assets in UBS, or elsewhere, call for a free tax fraud consultation today.
NZZ am Sonntag, one of the weekly newspapers, reports that the agreement was grounded on a 1996 US/Swiss tax agreement, allowing the Swiss cabinet to sign off on the deal without having to seek approval through the Swiss parliament. The 1996 agreement obliges Switzerland to provide the US with assistance in criminal prosecutions for tax evasion. NZZ says small accounts would not be reported, and account holders threatened with disclosure would have the right to challenge disclosure in Swiss courts.
Under another agreement earlier this year, UBS paid $780 million to settle criminal charges in the US, and it disclosed information on 250 United States clients. The fourth prosecution of a UBS client ended with a guilty plea on Friday, August 14. Malibu businessman John McCarthy admitted that he transferred at least one million dollars into secret UBS accounts over a five year period to avoid paying US taxes.
Earlier reports stated that the IRS would consider the UBS litigation a failure if UBS did not disclose at least 10,000 names; unofficially, now, all parties are describing the agreement as a success.
Approximately 47,000 United States citizens will continue to enjoy secret Swiss accounts. Whistleblowers should work to identify which of these account holders are hiding their assets to reduce their tax obligations. If you know of a United States citizen who is hiding assets in UBS, or elsewhere, call for a free tax fraud consultation today.
Friday, July 31, 2009
UBS Tax Evasion Case Nears Settlement
US Justice Department tax attorney Stuart Gibson told a federal judge that the parties have reached an agreement on the major issues in the US litigation against Swiss banking corporation, UBS. The Swiss Justice Ministry and UBS also issued statements confirming the deal. All sides are keeping the details confidential until the settlement is finalized, which is expected to occur by August 7.
In a criminal prosecution in February, UBS admitted that it helped US citizens avoid paying taxes. As part of a deferred prosecution agreement, UBS said it would pay a $780 million penalty and disclose the identities of 250-300 US clients. Since then, 3 of those UBS clients have pled guilty to tax charges regarding secret bank accounts.
The US government filed the current litigation to force UBS to disclose 52,000 additional client names. How many names UBS will actually disclose as a result of the settlement agreement is not yet known.
In a criminal prosecution in February, UBS admitted that it helped US citizens avoid paying taxes. As part of a deferred prosecution agreement, UBS said it would pay a $780 million penalty and disclose the identities of 250-300 US clients. Since then, 3 of those UBS clients have pled guilty to tax charges regarding secret bank accounts.
The US government filed the current litigation to force UBS to disclose 52,000 additional client names. How many names UBS will actually disclose as a result of the settlement agreement is not yet known.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Dodging the UBS Bullet?
The IRS received 400 applications last week from United States citizens seeking to voluntarily disclose that they have money in offshore bank accounts. Four hundred applicants in one week is four times the amount of applicants who disclosed off shore account for all of last year.
The unprecedented increase in voluntary disclosure activity comes just a few weeks before a federal judge's hearing on the lawsuit filed by the United States against UBS, a Swiss company, to force UBS to reveal the identities of 52,000 Americans suspected of tax fraud. The hearing is set for August 3rd; the two governments requested a delay to allow time for settlement negotiations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with Swiss foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey tomorrow. Predictions are that UBS will agree to reveal a significant number of taxpayers, but the numbers range from 2,500 to 10,000 of UBS's targeted clients. Why so low? The United States government is likely only focused on those owing the greatest amount of taxes. Former US federal prosecutor Peter Hardy is quoted as saying that the IRS will see the effort as a failure if it receives less than 10,000 taxpayers' names. No one predicts all 52,000 taxpayers' identities will be revealed.
Switzerland has threatened to take control of the UBS client data if necessary to avert a breach in the country's bank secrecy laws. The Swiss government views the lawsuit as a challenge to Switzerland's sovereignty. Calmy-Rey states that the solution to the UBS matter must fall within Swiss law. She believes the US should respect the two governments' common interest in maintaining UBS's role as an employer within both countries.
The IRS, in the meantime, is making it as easy as possible for taxpayers with undeclared off shore assets to disclose them to the Service. The IRS has streamlined forms for application and extended the deadline for the leniency program until September 23rd. Most important, those who voluntarily disclose may qualify for a lower assessment.
Whistleblowers who know of taxpayers with undisclosed off shore accounts should contact KEMY to determine if they could qualify for a reward by reporting the undisclosed assets. Taxpayers who have been found to have hidden their assets can be forced to pay back taxes, penalties, and interest for up to six years.
The unprecedented increase in voluntary disclosure activity comes just a few weeks before a federal judge's hearing on the lawsuit filed by the United States against UBS, a Swiss company, to force UBS to reveal the identities of 52,000 Americans suspected of tax fraud. The hearing is set for August 3rd; the two governments requested a delay to allow time for settlement negotiations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with Swiss foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey tomorrow. Predictions are that UBS will agree to reveal a significant number of taxpayers, but the numbers range from 2,500 to 10,000 of UBS's targeted clients. Why so low? The United States government is likely only focused on those owing the greatest amount of taxes. Former US federal prosecutor Peter Hardy is quoted as saying that the IRS will see the effort as a failure if it receives less than 10,000 taxpayers' names. No one predicts all 52,000 taxpayers' identities will be revealed.
Switzerland has threatened to take control of the UBS client data if necessary to avert a breach in the country's bank secrecy laws. The Swiss government views the lawsuit as a challenge to Switzerland's sovereignty. Calmy-Rey states that the solution to the UBS matter must fall within Swiss law. She believes the US should respect the two governments' common interest in maintaining UBS's role as an employer within both countries.
The IRS, in the meantime, is making it as easy as possible for taxpayers with undeclared off shore assets to disclose them to the Service. The IRS has streamlined forms for application and extended the deadline for the leniency program until September 23rd. Most important, those who voluntarily disclose may qualify for a lower assessment.
Whistleblowers who know of taxpayers with undisclosed off shore accounts should contact KEMY to determine if they could qualify for a reward by reporting the undisclosed assets. Taxpayers who have been found to have hidden their assets can be forced to pay back taxes, penalties, and interest for up to six years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
