In many cases, the payment of restitution by a party in a lawsuit involving the government or a governmental entity creates a tax-deductible business expense under Title 26, United States Code, Section 162(f) (hereinafter, “Section 162”). When it comes to violations of the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, or even common law fraud claims and contract disputes, understanding how this statute operates can offer substantial short- and long-term tax-benefits to entities facing stiff financial recoupments. While it is unlikely that the costs of an investigation or restitution order will ever generate a financial net-gain for the entity footing the bill, it is important to appreciate that restitution and proactive remediation costs are viewed differently by both government enforcers (i.e. prosecutors) and tax-collectors, compared with other types of remuneration. Recognizing that there is a difference can, in some cases, help mitigate significant financial burdens.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Unusual Combinations of Justices Denying Veterans’ Claim but Requiring Executive to Make Foreign Aid Payments to Contractors - SCOTUS Today
- Textualism Again Comes to the Fore, Albeit with Contradictory Views on the Court - SCOTUS Today
- Dictionary Definitions Prove Decisive - SCOTUS Today
- A Preliminary Injunction Does Not a “Prevailing Party” Make, Criminal Conviction Through Knowingly False Evidence Violates Due Process - SCOTUS Today
- Courtroom Chemistry: How Trial Team Dynamics Shape Case Outcomes – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast