Posts Tagged ‘whistleblower award’
Friday, April 12th, 2013
On March 13, 2013, the United States Tax Court issued an order calling for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Joseph Insigna ever received a determination from the IRS. Order, Joseph Insigna v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, No. 4609-12W (March 13, 2013). In his petition to the Court, Insigna argues that, although he has not received a final determination letter from the IRS, his whistleblower claims “have, as a practical matter, been denied, and that he has therefore received a de facto rejection.”
In response, the IRS argues that Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter because it has not, in fact, issued a determination on Insigna’s claim.
While both sides seem keen on arguing over whether Tax Court has jurisdiction over a claim in a situation when the IRS unreasonably delays in failing to issue a determination letter, the Order makes clear that the Court does not intend to reach that question unless it must. Instead, the Court will first focus on whether Insigna did, in fact, receive a determination — even a de facto determination .
Pursuant to the whistleblower statute, Tax Court has jurisdiction only if there has been “any determination regarding an award.” Id. To that end, the Court noted that the statute “does not explicitly require a ‘notice’ of a determination, nor a written determination, nor even any communication of a determination.”
The purpose, then, of the evidentiary hearing is to determine whether a de facto determination has, in fact, been made. To reach that conclusion, the Court will seek to determine “whether the IRS has completed its consideration of petitioner’s claim; what, if anything, the IRS is still doing with regard to petitioner’s claim; and whether the IRS expects to do anything in the future with regard to petitioner’s claim.” Id. Notably, the Court states that “[i]f there has been a cessation of administrative action, then a reviewable determination may have been effectively made thereby.” Id.
A former bank executive recently filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service claiming that the IRS owes him a reward for blowing the whistle.
Joseph A. Insinga filed a claim for an award with the IRS Whistleblower Office in 2007, one year after Congress passed a law establishing the Whistleblower Office. Under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, tax whistleblowers may receive an award ranging from 15% to 30% of the total taxes, penalties, and interest collected by the IRS, with the actual percentage awarded based on an informant’s contribution to the case.
Insinga claims that the IRS collected proceeds from the allegedly fraudulent taxpayers based on information that he provided, but he has yet to receive a response from the IRS regarding an award. As a result, Insinga filed a claim in the United States Tax Court, claiming the IRS owes him a portion of the proceeds it collected based on his information.
According to his petition, for at least two years, the IRS led him to believe that an award was forthcoming yet, following purported payments by the targeted taxpayers in November 2011, the IRS changed its tune, informing Insigna that his claims “were on life support.” Moreover, the IRS claimed that there were “other sources” of the information Insigna provided nearly four years earlier. The IRS subsequently informed Insigna that a final decision would be issued soon. According to Insigna, that statement was made in November 2011. Following nearly four more months of silence, Insigna filed his petition in or around February 2012.
The news of Insinga’s claim does not come at an opportune time for the IRS, which earlier last week was the subject of a scathing article on Forbes.com, critical of its failure to reward whistleblowers for valuable information. According to the author, Erika Kelton, an attorney at Phillips & Cohen who represents whistleblowers before the IRS, the problem with the IRS whistleblower program is not the “quality of the whistleblower information that the IRS is receiving” but rather “the IRS itself and institutional resistance to whistleblowers within the IRS.”
In FY 2010 alone, the IRS collected $464.6 million from taxpayers under its whistleblower program, so it is clear that the information is out there. The problem is that the IRS hands out too few awards, and takes too long to pay them.
It has recently been suggested that the IRS establish a website to monitor the status of its whistleblower claims. Even if personal data was redacted in accordance with IRS regulations, the website would at least reassure whistleblowers that their claims are being processed.
Whistleblowers should be viewed not as a burden, but rather as a weapon in the fight against fraud. After all, the False Claims Act recovered over $4 billion in federal funds in FY 2011. Given that the annual gap between what is owed in taxes and what is paid is approximately $385 billion (and growing), the IRS would be well served to use the tools Congress provided when it established the whistleblower program and follow in the footsteps of the False Claims Act in an effort to eliminate tax fraud and the $385 billion gap.
If you have knowledge of Tax Fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the IRS Whistleblower Program, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
GSK Pleads Guilty and Pays $3 Billion to Resolve Allegations Brought under False Claims Act by Whistleblowers Represented by K&M
Monday, July 2nd, 2012
Philadelphia, July 2, 2012 – GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $3 Billion in criminal and 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 market practices for Advair, Wellbutrin, Paxil, Lamictal, Zofran, Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex and Avandia. The settlement is the largest qui tam settlement in U.S. history. The settlement is the largest qui tam settlement in U.S. history.
Gregory Thorpe and Blair Hamrick, the first whistleblowers to file a qui tam action against GSK arising from this marketing misconduct nearly a decade ago, are represented by Kenney & McCafferty. As part of the record setting settlement, GSK agreed to pay $1.17 billion to settle claims brought by Thorpe and Hamrick. To read more about the settlement, click here.
To read the complaint filed on behalf of Thorpe and Hamrick, click here. Exhibits accompanying the complaint may be found here. Additionally, Thorpe’s internal report to compliance executives at GSK may be found within the Exhibits at 0000015-0000027.
To read the Complaint-in-Intervention filed by the United States, click here.
To read the Settlement Agreement, click here.
If you have knowledge of healthcare fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the False Claims Act, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Sunday, May 6th, 2012
In a recent article entitled “Source’s Cover Blown by the SEC,” the Wall Street Journal claimed that the SEC “inadvertently revealed the identity of a whistleblower.” The alleged disclosure occurred during the SEC’s investigation of Pipeline Trading Systems LLC. According to the article, an SEC lawyer “showed an executive who was being questioned a notebook from the whistleblower filled with jottings about trades, calls and meetings.” From that notebook, the executive claims he recognized the handwriting as that of Peter Earle, who happened to be the whistleblower who prompted the SEC’s investigation.
In a scathing response to the Journal’s story, the SEC disputes the allegations against it. In stark contrast to the story told by the Journal, the SEC asserted that it “in no way exposed Peter Earle as a whistleblower.” In fact, the Commission claims that the use of the notebook was neither “inadvertent” nor a “breach.” Instead, it was a “deliberate decision,” discussed by an SEC lawyer and his supervisor prior to the deposition in which the notebook was exhibited.
Going further, the SEC strongly disagrees with the allegation that the use of the notebooks in no way comprised Mr. Earle’s identity. According to the SEC, “it was widely known…that, after the termination of his employment in 2009, Mr. Earle had approached the SEC – a fact volunteered by witnesses and acknowledged by Mr. Earle long before the exhibition of his notebooks in November 2010.” Yet, despite this knowledge, the SEC maintains that, throughout the investigation, the Commission treated his status as a cooperating witness as confidential. There was “nothing about the notes…or about the SEC’s use of them as exhibits…that revealed anything about whether Mr. Earle or others were cooperating in the SEC’s investigation.”
If you have knowledge of Securities Fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the SEC whistleblower program, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, including your ability to remain anonymous in filing for an award, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Tuesday, April 24th, 2012
New York has filed suit against Sprint Nextel for more than $300 million. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the “first-of-its-kind” lawsuit against the company for “deliberately under-collecting and underpaying millions of dollars in New York state and local taxes on flat-rate access charges for wireless calling plans.”
The complaint alleges underpayments of more than $100 million, costing the State nearly $210,000 per week.
The lawsuit is the first ever tax enforcement action filed under the New York False Claims Act. Twenty-nine states and the federal government have passed False Claims Acts, but only New York’s Act expressly covers tax fraud. Under the NYFCA, the Attorney General may seek triple damages, plus penalties and interest.
According to the complaint, beginning in 2005, Sprint, the third-largest U.S. mobile service provider, failed to collect and pay New York sales taxes on an arbitrarily set portion of its revenue from fixed monthly access charges. The scheme was a part of a nationwide effort by the company to obtain an advantage over its wireless competitors, all of which have complied with the “extremely clear and unambiguous” state tax law, according to Schneiderman. “Everyone else had no trouble figuring out what the tax law was – except Sprint.” In executing its fraudulent scheme, Sprint repeatedly and knowingly submitted false records and statements to New York State tax authorities.
“By deliberately evading sales tax, Sprint cost state and local governments over $100 million that could have been used for critical services and much needed resources that our state and its citizens need given the challenging economic times we are in,” said Schneiderman. The message of our office is clear – tax dodging is not acceptable and we will use every tool in our arsenal to make sure that taxpayers’ money is protected, and that honest businesses and consumers are not placed at a disadvantaged for collecting and paying their fair share of taxes.”
The State’s lawsuit was prompted by a whistleblower complaint from Empire State Ventures. As whistleblowers, they may be eligible to receive up to twenty-five percent of any money recovered by New York as a result of information they have provided.
In response to the lawsuit, Sprint issued a statement denying the allegations: “This complaint is without merit and Sprint categorically denies the complaint’s allegations.”
If you have knowledge of Tax Fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the New York False Claims Act or the IRS whistleblower program, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Wednesday, April 11th, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012- An Arkansas judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.1 billion after a jury found that the company’s Risperdal marketing campaign violated the state’s consumer-protection laws. Specifically, the jury found that J&J downplayed and hid risks- diabetes and weight gain- associated with taking its antipsychotic drug.
Circuit Judge Tim Fox determined that J&J and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., committed nearly 240,000 violations of the state’s Medicaid fraud law — or one for each Risperdal prescription issued to state Medicaid patients over a 3 1 / 2-year period. Each violation carried a $5,000 fine, the state’s mandatory minimum amount, bringing the total to more than $1.1 billion.
Judge Fox issued an additional $11 million fine for more than 4,500 violations under the state’s deceptive practices act.
Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued a statement, claiming that today’s verdict “sends a clear signal that big drug companies like Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals cannot lie to the [FDA], patients and doctors in order to defraud Arkansas taxpayers of our Medicaid dollars.”
Arkansas is one of several states who have sued J&J over its marketing of Risperdal, yet the Arkansas penalty is the largest to date against J&J. In 2010, jurors in Louisiana ordered the drug manufacturer to pay almost $258 million to state officials for making misleading claims about the drug’s safety. Less than a year later, in June 2011, a South Carolina judge upheld a $327 million civil penalty against the company. Most recently, in January 2012, Texas reached a $158 settlement with the company, which did not admit fault in connection with the settlement.
Shortly after the verdict, Janssen issued a statement indicating its intent to appeal the verdict, which would be heard by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The United Stated continues to investigate the sales practices of J&J and Janssen related to Risperdal, including allegations that the company marketed the drug for unapproved uses. “Johnson & Johnson needs to wake up and realize they are playing a losing game. They should be running, not walking, to the settlement table,” said Patrick Burns of Taxpayers against Fraud. “[The Department of Justice] offered a global settlement for $1.8 billion last month. I am not sure that deal is going to stay on the table after this.”
If you have knowledge of Healthcare Fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the False Claims Act, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Wednesday, March 21st, 2012
The SEC’s new whistleblower award program is already making an impact, as many insiders are coming forward with investigative leads, hoping to cash in on the program.
The SEC whistleblower program allows individuals who present original information that leads an enforcement action resulting in monetary sanctions of over $1 million to collect an award. The award may range from 10-30%, depending on factors such as the significance of the information. Whistleblowers range from current insiders, former employees, and outside observers.
The SEC vets the tips through its market intelligence unit, which is comprised of nearly fifty attorneys. Potentially good leads are then funneled to enforcement attorneys.
SEC officials have recently commented that the quality of the tips received is surprisingly high, and some have resulted in “huge cases.”
According to the Financial Times, some insiders are taking on the role of detective. Recently, due to concerns with a deal on which he had worked, a company insider submitted a tip to the SEC. That tip resulted in an internal investigation and an SEC inquiry, which uncovered other problematic deals by the targeted company.
“In the stock market we’ve had good intel simply because of the surveillance by self-regulatory organizations and the firms themselves,” says Thomas Sporkin, head of the SEC’s market intelligence unit. “This program similarly provides a set of eyes and ears on the corporate side,” he said.
To read more about the SEC turning whistleblower tips into cases, see the full Financial Times article at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/15e5a89c-6a27-11e1-b54f-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/companies_us/feed//product#axzz1pl9KTUK8.
If you have knowledge of Securities Fraud or Corporate Fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the SEC whistleblower program, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Tuesday, July 26th, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower program provides for rewards for individuals who provide the government with information about violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977.
The FCPA was enacted in 1977 in an effort to end the practice of multinational corporations obtaining business abroad by bribing foreign officials. The Act covers any U.S. company or citizen doing business abroad. It covers foreign companies — and their directors, officers, stockholders, employees and agents — with reporting and registration requirements under the Securities and Exchange Acts as well as any foreign person or company acting within the United States.
The FCPA makes it unlawful to bribe a foreign government official to obtain or retain business. The Act prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from paying money or any other sort of inducement, including an offer or promise to pay money or anything of value, to a foreign official with the intent to influence a decision or action affecting that company’s business.
A foreign official is defined as “any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public international organization, or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of such government or department, agency, or instrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such public international organization.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the chief enforcement agency, with a coordinate role played by the SEC. The DOJ is responsible for all criminal enforcement and for civil enforcement of the anti-bribery provisions with respect to domestic concerns and foreign companies and nationals. The SEC, on the other hand, is responsible for civil enforcement of the anti-bribery provisions with respect to issuers.
The FCPA provides for criminal and civil penalties. The criminal penalties include fines on officers, directors, stockholders, employees and agents of up to $250,000 and up to five (5) years in prison. Meanwhile, corporations and other business entities can face criminal fines of up to $2 million, or alternatively twice the amount of ill-gotten profits. The civil fines under the FCPA include $10,000 against any violating company and individual. Moreover, the SEC may also require a disgorgement of profits.
In the past few years, prosecutions under the FCPA have dramatically increased. The SEC has established an enforcement unit, targeting violations of the FCPA by U.S. issuers. The DOJ has similarly assigned prosecutors and FBI agents exclusively to the FCPA. The federal authorities have also instituted more aggressive investigative tactics in their pursuit of FCPA violations.
The DOJ and the SEC recently settled with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for $71 million. J&J agreed to pay $21.4 million in criminal penalties as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. J&J additionally settled a related matter filed by the SEC agreeing to more than $48.6 million in disgorgement of profits and pre-judgment interest. The $71 million aggregate settlement by J&J registers as just the 10th largest FCPA-related settlement since 2008.
The top nine FCPA related settlements are as follows: (1) Siemens for $800 million in 2008; (2) KBR/ Halliburton for $579 million in 2009; (3) BAE for $400 million in 2010; (4) Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V. for $365 million in 2010; (5) Technip S.A. for $338 million in 2010; (6) JGC Corp. for $218.8 million in 2011; (7) Daimler AG for $185 million in 2010; (8) Alcatel-Lucent for $137 million in 2010; and (9) Panalpina for $81.8 million in 2010.
If you have knowledge of an FCPA violation or other securities law violations and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the SEC or CFTC whistleblower programs, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Tags: Department of Justice, DOJ, FCPA, FCPA violation, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission whistleblower program, Securities law violations, whistleblower, whistleblower award, whistleblower reward
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011
Linda Stengle of Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. presented testimony before the IRS on May 11, 2011, on its proposed definition of “collected proceeds.” The definition, if approved, would form the basis of calculating whistleblower awards.
The IRS had four people on a panel to hear the comments. They were Tom Kane, Senior Legal Counsel; Stephen Whitlock, Director of the Whistleblower Office; Alexandra Minkovich, Attorney-Advisor; and Kirsten Witter, Chief of the Service’s Ethics and General Government Law Branch. The panel asked questions of a few presenters, including Stengle. Tom Kane stated that NOLs should be considered to be ordinary deductions and were not relevant to an award calculation. Kane also said there should be no 2 year waiting period imposed in cases involving a closing agreement and that further guidance would be issued with regard to whether whistleblowers can obtain a portion of criminal fines.
Stengle pointed out irregularities in the public comment process ordinarily required when the IRS changes a major regulation. Specifically, the IRS issued its Whistleblower Manual in June 2010 without public comment and narrowed the definition of “collected proceeds.” Senator Grassley, the author of the statute mandating IRS whistleblower awards, criticized the Manual and said that several sections worked to deter whistleblowers from reporting large scale tax underpayment. Stengle echoed Grassley’s request that the manual be held in abeyance while substantive sections undergo public comment.
Four other attorneys presented testimony on the topic. Among other comments, Richard Rubin observed that the proposed rule addressed the inclusion of specific categories of recovery into the definition, but no actual definition for “collected proceeds” exists anywhere in the regulations.
All those who presented stated that the proposed definition for collected proceeds needed to be broadened. The panel members gave no indication of when the IRS plans to publish the final version of the definition.
Tags: corporate fraud, government fraud, IRS, IRS reward, IRS whistleblower program, tax evasion, Tax Fraud, tax underpayment, tax whistleblower, whistleblower award, whistleblower reward
Posted in Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, Estate Tax Fraud, IRS Whistleblower Office, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
Wednesday, May 4th, 2011
A long time corporate investigator recently shared his concern that whistleblowers look to corporate investigators and attorneys for help and protection when they blow the whistle. Nothing could be further from the truth. “There’s nothing I can do,” said the investigator. “I’ve seen it over and over again. They are going to get their heads cut off.”
The investigator said he knew that whistleblowers, no matter the merit of their report, would be skillfully and systematically terminated with a substantial paper trail to support management’s actions.
“They look to me for help,” he said. “I work for the company. I tell them that, but they don’t seem to understand.”
Neither did CEO Ian Norris of Morgan Crucible Company. Morgan Crucible came under government investigation for an international price fixing conspiracy. CEO Norris began a campaign to obstruct a grand jury investigation, and he shared details of his campaign with Morgan Crucible’s attorney. When the government learned of Norris’s obstruction, it charged Norris with corruptly persuading, and attempting and conspiring to corruptly persuade, others with intent to influence their testimony in grand jury proceedings. Morgan Crucible waived its attorney client privilege and granted permission for corporate counsel to testify. Norris fought the testimony, saying the corporate attorney also represented Norris in his individual capacity and was prohibited from testifying.
The Third Circuit disagreed, but found that communications about scope of representation were ambiguous. Ultimately, the court ruled that Morgan Crucible, alone, held the right to waive attorney client privilege, and the attorney testified.
The attorney testified that Norris, in front of counsel, disseminated a false cover story and scripts about the price fixing and encouraged everyone, including counsel, to relay the false information to investigators. The attorney said he did not know the information was false.
Attorneys and investigators should provide employees with explicit explanations about their role in investigating allegations of fraud within a corporation. They often do not, for a variety of reasons. Bottom line – employees need to take steps to protect themselves when they report corporate misconduct internally.
For a free consult about whether you have a potential government fraud claim, call K&M today.
Tags: abuse, attorney general, corporate fraud, corruption, False claims, False Claims Act, FCA, FERA, fraud, fraud reward, government fraud, health care fraud, IRS whistleblower, IRS whistleblower program, medicare fraud, pharmaceutical fraud, Qui Tam, retaliate, retaliation, SEC whistleblower, Tax cheat, tax evasion, Tax Fraud, tax whistleblower, whistle blowing, whistleblower award, whistleblowing, wrongful termination
Posted in Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, False Claims Act, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, retaliation, SEC Whistleblower Program, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
Tuesday, April 26th, 2011
In Friedland v Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2011-90), the United States Tax Court dismissed the IRS whistleblower’s appeal because it was not filed within thirty days of the date of the “no answer letter” sent to Friedland by the IRS Whistleblower Office. The Tax Court reiterated its ruling in Cooper – the “no answer letter” constitutes a final determination of a whistleblower claim.
Murray Friedland, a CPA, reported two corporations for tax violations in September 2009. On November 13, 2009, the IRS Whistleblower Office sent Friedland a letter explaining that it had reviewed and evaluated the claim and then said that prevailing law prevented it from explaining why a claim would be denied. Friedland found the letter confusing. He sent additional information about his claim to the Whistleblower Office, and he called for an explanation. The WO responded with three letters, one memorializing a conversation in which Friedland was told that he could write to the US Court of Federal Claims. The letters also confirmed that the WO would not change its determination about Friedland’s claim.
Friedland followed the suggestion of the WO and appealed to the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the appeal on May 26, 2010, because the CFC does not have jurisdiction to hear IRS whistleblower appeals. On June 18, 2010, Friedland filed an appeal with the Tax Court.
Friedland filed his appeal 217 days after the date of the first letter, the “no answer letter.” As decided in previous Tax Court rulings, the “no answer letter” is notice of a final determination that the IRS is denying the claim. Whistleblowers have thirty days from the date of the no answer letter to file their appeals. Because Friedland filed 217 days after the date of the no answer letter, the Tax Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the claim because it was filed too late.
With regard to Friedland’s obvious confusion about the appeal process, the Tax Court said, “We recognize that petitioner may have relied on the erroneous advice of the Whistleblower Office in filing his initial appeal with the Claims Court. . . We sympathize with the petitioner. We cannot expand our jurisdiction, however, even where the Commissioner provided bad advice.”
Kenney & McCafferty, P.C., has successfully represented IRS whistleblowers, even before the passage of the 2006 whistleblower statute. For knowledgeable and trustworthy representation, contact K&M for a free assessment today.
Tags: Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, Estate Tax Fraud, fraud reward, IRS whistle blower, IRS whistleblower, offshore tax fraud, Tax cheat, tax claims, tax court, tax evasion, Tax Fraud, tax petition, tax underpayment, tax whistle blower, tax whistleblower, tax whistleblower petition, whistleblower appeals, whistleblower award, whistleblower reward
Posted in Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, Estate Tax Fraud, IRS Whistleblower Office, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, retaliation, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off