Posts tagged as:

whistleblower

The Ferraro Law Firm has announced that a new tax whistleblower submission of more than $4.4 billion has been filed with the IRS Whistleblower Office. This brings the total of whistleblower claims filed by The Ferraro Law Firm to more than $10 billion.

According to The Ferraro Law Firm, in this most recent submission, a tax whistleblower has come forward alleging that a Fortune 500 company has underpaid its US tax liability by more than $4.4 billion, over a short period of time, by engaging in abusive tax transactions. “In our experience, $4.4 billion is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to corporate tax underpayments,” said Tax Partner Scott Knott. “Given staffing levels at the IRS, many companies take dozens of aggressive positions figuring the IRS cannot find them all. For many companies, the tax department is one of the most profitable business units,” said Tax Partner Greg Lynam. “This particular multi-national company started with smaller tax plays and became emboldened after it continually got away with it. After today, that will change,” said Knott.

The IRS established the Whistleblower Office in 2007 to collect information about tax cheats and must, by law, pay a reward of up to 30% of the amount collected to the tax whistleblower.

{ 3 comments }

To no one’s surprise (except Murphy’s counsel), the Supreme Court denied cert in Murphy v. IRS, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C. Cir. 7/3/07).

Counsel for Ms. Murphy has indicated that the process has been political – you can read the press release here.

You know that I’ve had my say about Murphy – read up if you wish.

(Hat tip: TaxProf Blog)

{ 0 comments }

Hey, you didn’t hear it from me. I’ve sworn off commenting on Murphy, remember?

I’ve said my piece on Murphy – and argued with opposing counsel. I’ve posted my mea culpa.

I’ve updated regarding Murphy’s petition for rehearing and the subsequent rejection of that petition. I’ve also referenced the Ninth Circuit’s decision not to address the 16th Amendment issues in Murphy.

So I’m about Murphyed out. Apparently, Murphy’s attorneys are not (read into that whatever you want – I don’t even want to think about the amount of legal fees in this matter).

Rather than comment on the latest bid for cert at the Supreme Court, I’ll send you over to TaxProf blog for this great piece from December 2007 and the follow-up from today.

{ 1 comment }

Here We Go Again.

August 18, 2007 · 2 comments

The attorneys for Marrita Murphy just aren’t going quietly. On August 17, 2007, they filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (available here as a pdf) for Ms. Murphy’s tax case.

I’ve posted and posted and posted about the case on the blog previously.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

(hat tip: TaxProf Blog)

{ 2 comments }