Whistleblower Lawyer Blog

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."

We await the government's announcement whether it will ask the entire court to reconsider its ruling; seek review by the Supreme Court; or seek to bring other charges.

As we have written, tax fraud, tax evasion, and other violations of IRS laws, rules and regulations can be addressed--in criminal and civil cases, often with the help of whistleblowers--without violating the Constitution. Those enforcement efforts must continue, so that honest citizens do not get stuck paying more than their fair share of the tax burden.

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.

Evanson and a co-conspirator received a fee that was typically equal to 30 percent of the tax evaded by his clients.

The conviction followed guilty pleas by another attorney, an accountant, and two certified public accountants, all of whom await sentencing.

"Promoters of elaborate offshore criminal financial schemes for the purpose of committing tax evasion isn't tax planning; it's criminal activity," stated Eileen Mayer, Chief of IRS Criminal Investigations. "Taxpayers should be wary of anyone claiming to be an expert on how to hide income from the IRS."

We commend the IRS and Justice Department for their success in pursuing offshore tax evasion.

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.

The Justice Department's announcement took aim at "contractors that falsely bill for crucial tasks that they do not perform,” in the words of Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division.

We congratulate the coordinated efforts of the various agencies that brought about this result: the Justice Department’s Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit; the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and Office of Counsel to the Inspector General; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and the FBI.

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.

OIG must "approve" the state's whistleblower law for the state to be eligible for the additional funds. In effect, states may enact laws with stronger or more effective provisions than the federal False Claims Act, but cannot enact a "weaker" or less effective version of the False Claims Act and still receive the increased funds.

You can read here OIG's analysis of the problems it found with the False Claims Acts of Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

Fortunately, these problems are easily corrected. OIG has now informed these states precisely how their statutes should be amended to entitle them to receive the additional share of fraud recoveries.

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.

We applaud this new legislation and hope that it will fulfill its statutory goals. All whistleblowers who have knowledge of safety violations involving consumer products now should feel more comfortable in coming forward to disclose such violations. If they do so, they are now legally protected.

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.

Second, the Whistleblower Office will "send the informant information to a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in each Business Operating Division," who will "evaluate the information provided by informants to determine its merit and what action should be taken."

As our whistleblower lawyer blog has written about previously, the IRS has taken steps to ensure that privileged or unlawfully obtained information is not presented. The 'Subject Matter Expert" will "insulate the audit team from direct contact with the whistleblower and must ensure the audit team does not receive 'tainted' information. Tainted information may include documents that are subject to privilege or were illegally obtained by the informant."

In the third step, "Counsel and the SME will make a recommendation to the Industry Director on the legal issues and risks associated with the informant information." The Industry Director then "will decide whether and how to proceed with the case."

The complete Memorandum from Commissioner Ng can be found at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=185244,00.html.

We congratulate the IRS on the continued development of this valuable program!