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.
Recent Updates
- Powerful Tool, but Not an Attorney: Massachusetts Court Rejects Work Product Protection for AI-Generated Documents
- SCOTUS: Venue in White-Collar Case Tied to Proscribed Conduct, Not Intended Effects
- Washington Arbitration Agreements Are Failing Employers in Wage and Hour Cases
- New York’s AVOID Act: Strict Deadlines for Third-Party Practice
- Watch: DOJ’s New Self-Disclosure Rules: Decide Fast or Lose the Credit – Speaking of Litigation