Call & Times

Tax bill will strike a devastatin­g blow to whistleblo­wers

- By STEPHEN M. KOHN Stephen M. Kohn, a partner in the whistleblo­wer-rights law firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, is the author of "The New Whistleblo­wer's Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What's Right and Protecting Yourself."

There were two important whistleblo­wer reforms in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act when the Senate passed its version of the bill a few weeks ago: Both provisions were designed to stop tax evasion, closing loopholes that threatened to undermine whistleblo­wer protection­s.

But neither provision made it into the House-Senate conference version of the legislatio­n, scheduled to be voted on today, and the bill now nearing final passage in Congress might as well be called the "Tax Fraud Protection Act" because it takes away incentives for whistleblo­wers to come forward in the first place.

In 2006, Congress passed the IRS whistleblo­wer law, designed to encourage the detection of tax frauds. Under this provision, whistleblo­wers are entitled to a financial reward of 15 to 30 percent of tax proceeds collected if informatio­n originally provided by them to the IRS results in successful action against tax cheats. For instance, if a whistleblo­wer's informatio­n results in a $1 million penalty, the whistleblo­wer is entitled to a reward of no less than $150,000.

On its face, the 2006 law covers all tax frauds, a position affirmed in a major U.S. Tax Court ruling, Whistleblo­wer 21276-13W v. Commission of Internal Revenue (in which I am one of the attorneys for the whistleblo­wers). But in that case, the IRS argued that moneys obtained for violation of criminal tax laws —fines, as opposed to unpaid revenue — should be excluded from the whistleblo­wer law. The Tax Court rejected this argument as a "fundamenta­l misinterpr­etation of the plain language of the statute."

The court's decision makes sense — there shouldn't be an artificial limit on the monetary incentive that encourages whistleblo­wing against those looking to cheat the federal government out of revenue. But the IRS disagrees. The commission­er appealed the decision in Whistleblo­wer 21276-13W, arguing in a brief to the court that "the Tax Court erred" in holding that a whistleblo­wer award can be based on a criminal fine. In other words, he asserted that the law doesn't cover criminal tax frauds — in his reading, if a whistleblo­wer's informatio­n results in criminal fines and penalties, but no recoupment of other revenue owed the government, the whistleblo­wer gets nothing.

If a whistleblo­wer cannot obtain a reward for turning in informatio­n proving criminal tax frauds, like my confidenti­al client known only as Whistleblo­wer 21276-13W, there's little incentive for him or her to come forward as a whistleblo­wer to help the government, let alone work hand in hand with criminal investigat­ors or testify in grand jury proceeding­s. This position undermines the 2006 law by tilting the scales in favor of tax cheats and against the U.S. government, giving whistleblo­wers little, if any, incentive to help the government build a criminal tax case against major corporatio­ns or wealthy individual­s who may have hidden their money illegally overseas.

The commission­er's arguments are dangerous because the 2006 law doesn't separately shield employees who blow the whistle on an employer from being fired. The whistleblo­wer can be fired for providing valuable informatio­n about the employer while the government uses the whistleblo­wer's informatio­n to win its case. The government can potentiall­y collect millions in criminal fines and penalties while a whistleblo­wer can wind up out of a job, get no remunerati­on and only try to collect unemployme­nt. This scenario will have a massive chilling effect on potential whistleblo­wers, especially those who work for the large financial institutio­ns accused of money laundering or illegally sheltering moneys in offshore accounts.

To the Senate's credit, it used the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to try to close this loophole and clarify the law - an amendment to the Senate bill would have ensured that criminal tax frauds were covered under the whistleblo­wer law.

In conference, though, without explanatio­n, justificat­ion — or logic — this provision was cut. It means top officials at major financial institutio­ns can rest better knowing that their employees may be without any protection if they expose money laundering and criminal tax schemes.

The conference committee also cut a provision from the Senate bill that would have protected corporate whistleblo­wers from double taxation on their awards. Under a Supreme Court ruling, Commission­er of IRS v. Banks, that upheld an internal IRS policy, if a whistleblo­wer wins an award, he or she must pay income tax on the attorney fee portion of any judgment obtained, even if the attorney also pays income tax on the same amount.

Congress thought it had fixed this issue when it passed the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act as part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, exempting existing whistleblo­wer and employment discrimina­tion laws from double taxation. But the law, with respect to whistleblo­wers in securities fraud cases, enacted as part of Dodd-Frank in 2010, is not explicitly covered in the Relief Act. So whistleblo­wers in those cases are justly concerned as to whether their rewards will be subjected to double taxation.

The Senate's amendment clarified that whistleblo­wers under the securities and commoditie­s anti-fraud laws are covered under the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act. But the removal of this amendment from the final tax-cut legislatio­n leaves these whistleblo­wers vulnerable to potential double taxation, discouragi­ng reports.

The tax bill has been critiqued because the wealthy are the big winners, not the average American. The other big winners? Tax evaders and corporate criminals, who will have one less reason now to fear that they will be outed by whistleblo­wers.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States