Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The historical antecedents of qui tam statutes lie in Roman and Anglo-Saxon law. [3] Roman criminal prosecutions were typically initiated by private citizens and beginning no later than the Lex Pedia, it became common for Roman criminal statutes to offer a portion of the defendant's forfeited property to the initiator of the prosecution as a reward. [3]
Qui tam is an abbreviated form of the Latin legal phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur ("he who brings a case on behalf of our lord the King, as well as for himself") [11] In a qui tam action, the citizen filing suit is called a "relator".
A qui tam (in the name of the king) action may be brought by any party (as a relator) against an entity that is fraudulently collecting money from the United States government by filing false claims. The party bringing the suit – the relator – must have possession of information substantiating the claim of fraud against the government.
The qui tam concept is older than that, however. It dates back to the first Congress, which enacted numerous qui tam laws signed by President George Washington. An early heyday for the concept ...
Ultimately the private qui tam lawyers led by Sheller had to approve any settlement, or their clients could withdraw and fight on. The discussions were now far enough long that the government lawyers thought it necessary at least to give their ostensible co-counsel the courtesy of sharing the $1.3 billion figure.
Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption, as it has for items such as life ...
Civil fraud: If the IRS believes you have committed tax evasion, but the offense is not considered criminal, you could face a penalty of 75% of the tax underpayment attributable to fraud.
The Assembly approved the measure, S-784, in a 79-0 vote. The Senate passed the bill in April without opposition. It now goes to Gov. Phil Murphy, who has not indicated whether he supports the bill.