New! Enter your email address to
subscribe to Everything Tax Law!

RSS/Atom Feed
Bookmark Us
Free Tax Advice

Qui Tam Settlements and the Tax Benefit Rule

A qui tam claim involves a lawsuit where a private citizen helps the government prosecute fraud perpetrated against the government. These claims are often filed by employees or former employees who know of wrongdoing by an employer. These are often whistleblower claims. In exchange for helping to prosecute the claim, the private individuals are entitled to a portion of the government’s recovery.


Qui tam claims - and especially agreements to settle qui tam claims - raise a number of unique tax issues. One such issue is whether a taxpayer who pays to settle a qui tam claim can take advantage of the tax benefit rule. The IRS recently released a legal memorandum that addresses this issue.

The tax benefit rule allows a taxpayer to deduct or receive a tax credit for repaying income that the taxpayer paid tax on in a prior year. The idea is that the taxpayer who paid tax on income in a prior year and then had to repay the income, should be entitled to reduce their current year tax liability to offset the taxes that they paid in error in the prior year.

To qualify for the tax benefit rule, it must appear that the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to the payment in the year in which they received the payment. The courts have created a rule that says that taxpayers are not entitled to claim of right deductions or credits if the income was received on account of fraud or wrongdoing. The idea here is that the taxpayer who commits fraud knows or should know that it does not have an unrestricted right to the income.

A question arises where the taxpayer settles the claim without admitting or being found to have committed fraud - even though the taxpayer’s fraud is readily apparent. As the legal memorandum sets out, the IRS must scrutinize the settlement agreements and the intention of the parties to determine whether the settlement was for wrongdoing and whether there is sufficient nexus between the repayment and the income that was previously reported.


Share and Enjoy:

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • Technorati


Related Posts:

  • Tax Treatment of Settlement Agreements (Again)
  • Documentation is Everything in Some Tax Cases
  • Tax Treatment of Settlement Agreements: A Review For Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
  • Sluggish Economy May Help Taxpayers With Unpaid Tax Debts
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition Not Sufficient to Support IRA Deduction

    Popular Posts
  • Leave a Reply

    colorado tax attorney | sitemap | terms | resources | attorneys | tax preparers | directory | contact us | login
    © 2005-present all rights reserved


    Not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

    www.technologytax.com

    Colorado:Arvada Aspen Aurora Avon Bayfield Basalt Berthoud Black Hawk Boulder Breckenridge Brighton Broomfield Brush Burlington Castle Rock Cedaredge Centennial Cherry Hills Village Colorado Springs Commerce City Cortez Craig Creede Cripple Creek Delta Denver Dillon Durango Eagle Eaton Edgewater Englewood Erie Estes Park Evans Federal Heights Firestone Frederick Fort Collins Fort Lupton Fort Morgan Fountain Frisco Fruita Georgetown Glendale Glenwood Springs Golden Grand Junction Greeley Greenwood Village Gunnison Gypsum Idaho Springs Ignacio Johnstown La Junta Lafayette Lakewood Lamar Larkspur Limon Littleton Lone Tree Longmont Louisville Loveland Lyons Minturn Montrose Monument Morrison Nederland New Castle Northglenn Olathe Pagosa Springs Palmer Lake Parker Pueblo Rifle Sheridan Silt Silverthorne Silverton Town of Snowmass Village South Fork Steamboat Springs Sterling Stratton Superior Telluride Timnath Thornton Trinidad Vail Westminster Wheat Ridge Windsor Winter Park Woodland Park