Key Whistleblower Changes in Bipartisan Budget Act

0

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, passed overnight and signed this morning by President Trump to end the second federal government shutdown of this year, includes two key provisions for whistleblowers previously introduced by Senator Charles Grassley but removed from the January budget deal.

For IRS whistleblowers, the law clarifies the term collected proceeds to include criminal fines and civil forfeitures as well as violations of reporting requirements. The IRS has previously taken the position that tax whistleblowers are only eligible for rewards based on fines pursuant to Title 26. This interpretation was rejected by the U.S. Tax Court last year and the Government appealed to the D.C. Circuit to reverse the decision. This section essentially resolves that appeal and affirms the U.S. Tax Court decision giving a broad definition to the term.

The legislation will also unify the tax treatment of whistleblower awards for the major laws. For some time, whistleblowers awarded money under the Federal False Claims Act and IRS whistleblower program were entitled to an above-the-line tax deduction for their attorney fees. The tax deduction did not clearly extend to CFTC and SEC whistleblowers, or rewards under the State False Claims Acts. These awards were subject to taxation of the entire amount received by the individual and then again for the amount paid by the client to the law firm.

In other words, IRC sections 62(a)(20) and 62(a)(21) allowed False Claims Act relators and IRS whistleblowers to only pay taxes for the amount received after paying their attorney fees. The law firm is responsible for paying tax on the amount of attorney fees that they are paid by their client. The legislation extends the above-the-line deduction to Dodd Frank Act whistleblowers and relators paid under the state False Claims Acts. Notably, it does not mention the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act, which was

We have discussed these issues several times on this blog since the Grassley Amendments were initially introduced into the Senate’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in November 2017. If you have questions about these or other aspects of the whistleblower laws, please call 1-800-590-4116 to speak to a McEldrew Young whistleblower attorney.

DOJ Announces Largest Hospice Fraud Settlement Ever – $75 Million

0

The Justice Department announced the resolution of a False Claims Act lawsuit with a $75 million settlement by Chemed Corporation and various wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Vitas Hospice Services. The settlement is the largest amount ever recovered under the False Claims Act from a provider of hospice services, according to Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, Chad A. Readler.

Vitas is the largest for-profit hospice chain in the United States, operating 51 for-profit hospice programs in 18 states. Historically, around 90% of Vitas’ revenue is derived from Medicare. Chemed acquired the Vitas-affiliated companies in 2004.

CRISIS CARE

Crisis care is designed to allow a hospice provider to assist with the management of uncontrolled symptoms during a short period of time to return the patient to a state of comfort. It provides for around-the-clock care for up to 24 hours, with its appropriateness reassessed every 24 hours.

The lawsuit alleged that the Defendants submitted or caused false claims for crisis care services that were not provided to patients, that were inappropriately provided, or were not medically necessary because the patients were not in crisis during the periods that the Defendants claimed. According to the complaint filed by the United States, Vitas misled patients through their marketing materials to believe that patients would routinely receive “intensive comfort care” paid for by Medicare without informing them of the required acute medical symptoms. Vitas also used this marketing technique with potential referral sources.

According to the allegations in the complaint, Vitas not only distributed materials that incorrectly informed staff how and when to initiate crisis care, but the companies set aggressive goals for billing Medicare for crisis care. One nurse stated that she was sent to the home of patients for crisis care to find them not in crisis on more than one occasion. In one instance where crisis care rates dropped, Vitas’ Vice President of Operations sought an analysis of what caused the drop and how the location will correct it.

The complaint also alleges that Chemed and Vitas knew through regular internal audits that patients did not qualify for crisis care which they received or that the crisis care was inconsistent with the patient’s plan of care. Defendants were also aware that their Medicare reimbursement for crisis care far exceeded the rest of the hospice industry.

In many cases, according to the allegations, the care billed as “crisis care” by Vitas was simply a part of routine home care services. In total, the United States listed seven patient examples of this conduct.

END OF LIFE CARE

It is well known that Medicare requires hospice patients to be terminal and have a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Hospice care is designed to provide end-of-life comfort and is not designed for patients still seeking a cure or who may live for years.

According to the allegations, Vitas also admitted patients who did not need end of life care and billed Medicare for them. Managers at Vitas’ headquarters set aggressive admissions goals and made focused inquiries when admission numbers were low. They also evaluated general managers of each program based on its profitability and as a result the program managers often disregarded nurse and doctor concerns regarding patients who were not terminally ill.

Vitas similarly evaluated marketing representatives based on meeting their admission goals and paid bonuses based on enrollment into the program. The company philosophy, according to one former hospice manager, was to sign everybody up. Medical staff also reported that they felt pressured to admit or readmit patients who were inappropriate. Another nurse reported that the goal at discharge meetings was to disregard as few patients as possible without regard to the appropriateness of care. One doctor even reported that he was overruled on several occasions when he did not certify patients as eligible for hospice.

The United States offered seven patient examples for the allegations that Defendants billed hospice care for patients who did not meet the Medicare requirements.

THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT LAWSUITS

There were three whistleblower lawsuits filed against one or more of the companies involved in the settlement. The United States intervened in the lawsuits and transferred them to the Western District of Missouri, where they were consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the United States against the Defendants. As part of the settlement, Vitas entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement.

If you have evidence of hospice fraud occurring at another health care provider, call 1-800-590-4116 for a free consultation with a McEldrew Young False Claims Act attorney.

False Claims Act Whistleblowers Paid $392 Million in Fiscal Year 2017

0

The Department of Justice recovered more then $3.7 billion in settlements and judgments in Fiscal Year 2017 from the False Claims Act according to the press release issued last week. The majority of the funds recovered were in lawsuits initiated by whistleblowers. Qui tam lawsuits led to $3.4 billion of the $3.7 billion in settlements and judgments.

Whistleblowers received $392 million during FY2017 for bringing fraud to the attention of the United States and the Department of Justice. Whistleblower awards were down from last year, when the United States paid out $519 million to whistleblowers based on the recovery of $2.9 billion. The False Claims Act provides for awards of between 15 and 30 percent of funds recovered from False Claims Act lawsuits.

There were 669 qui tam lawsuits filed during the last fiscal year. The number is the fourth highest on record since the 1986 amendments of the False Claims Act. This number was down from Fiscal Year 2016, when there were 702 qui tam lawsuits filed. The highest number of new matters filed by whistleblowers was in Fiscal Year 2013. Many of these cases will still be working their way through the legal system as government investigations into matters may take years before litigation starts in earnest.

The majority of the funds recovered by the federal government in FY 2017 were from the health care industry. The government recovered $2.4 billion from health care fraud, the eighth consecutive year that civil health care fraud settlements and judgments exceeded $2 billion. These funds have usually been taken inappropriately from Medicare or Medicaid, although there are other federal funded health care programs that lose money from health care fraud such as TRICARE, which is the managed service healthcare program for service members, reservists and their dependents.

Over $900 million in recoveries were from the drug and medical device industry. The government’s press release cited settlements by Shire ($350 million) and Mylan ($465 million) as examples. Other health care lawsuit settlements mentioned were Life Care Centers of America ($145 million) and eClinicalWorks ($155 million).

The Government reported settlements and judgments of $543 million from housing and mortgage fraud in FY 2017. The press release specifically mentioned a jury verdict of $296 million against Allied Home Mortgage as well as settlements with Financial Freedom ($89 million) and PHH Mortgage ($65 million).

There were a variety of other matters resolved under the False Claims Act in FY 2017, including procurement fraud, grant fraud, fraudulently obtained small business contracts, and fraudulently obtained government subsidies for discounted mobile phone services to low-income consumers.

The recoveries detailed by these numbers include around 8.5 months during the Trump Administration and 3.5 months during the Obama Administration as the United States fiscal year runs from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. In total, the United States has recovered more than $56 billion since 1986 when Congress amended the civil False Claims Act.

Collected Proceeds Clarification for IRS Whistleblowers Dropped from Tax Bill

0

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the reconciliation of the tax legislation has dropped the definition of collected proceeds for the IRS whistleblower program introduced into the Senate version that passed. The amendment was added by Senator Chuck Grassley, an advocate for whistleblowers and responsible for introducing the legislative provision in 2007 that created the IRS whistleblower program.

The reconciliation process is used to achieve a final bill when there are differences in the bills passed by the House and Senate. The original version of the tax bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives did not include Senator Grassley’s amendments.

The definition of collected proceeds for the IRS whistleblower law is currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The proposed measure would have codified an interpretation of the term collected proceeds to provide whistleblowers a percentage of both criminal fines and civil forfeitures. The IRS argued in U.S. Tax Court last year that these funds were not included in the term. The U.S. Tax Court decided a broad interpretation of the term was warranted in a decision that favored the whistleblowers. The ruling is now on appeal.

The reconciled bill also appears to have eliminated Senator Grassley’s other proposed amendment, to clarify that SEC and CFTC whistleblower awards are exempt from double taxation under the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act (adopted as part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004).

The potential for double taxation is created when successful whistleblowers must pay tax on the entire amount of their award and then the whistleblower’s attorney pays tax on the portion they receive from the contingency fee. The Relief Act allows for an exemption for the contingent fee portion so that only one tax payment is made. As always, consult a tax lawyer for specific legal advice with regard to tax issues.

The reconciliation was passed by the U.S. House, 227-203, and the U.S. Senate, 51-48. It will now be sent to President Trump’s desk for signature.

Latest Settlement Reveals Mortgage Fraud Continued Years After Financial Crisis Ended

0

We are reaching the end of a decade since mortgage fraud hit its peak in 2007. However, the latest settlement by IberiaBank suggests that at least one lender continued aspects of mortgage fraud against the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) well after becoming informed of their wrongdoing.

IberiaBank agreed to pay the United States more than $11 million in response to allegations that it did not comply with federal requirements on FHA mortgage loans. The settlement resulted from allegations made under the False Claims Act by whistleblowers who were formerly employed at the bank.

Similar to other allegations against banks during the financial crisis, IberiaBank admitted that certain loan files contained inadequate documentation on income, inadequate verification of the down payment, and unresolved appraisal discrepancies.

The most disturbing part of the allegations is that the bank told HUD that it was no longer paying underwriter commissions after a HUD review in 2010 notified IberiaBank that it was not in compliance with a prohibition on underwriter commissions. Nevertheless, the bank did not disclose that it was making incentive payments to underwriters. These payments continued to be made by the bank until 2014. As a result, the period of covered conduct for the settlement was from the beginning of 2005 until the end of 2014.

IberiaBank is not the only one to be in the news recently for problems in its mortgage department. Wells Fargo is in the process of refunding rate-lock extension fees assessed to mortgage borrowers where the delay was due to its practices. President Trump recently denied media reports that the U.S. was going to let Wells Fargo off the hook without a fine for falsifying records to blame the mortgage-processing delays on the consumers borrowing money. Instead, President Trump suggested in a tweet that while he has promised to cut regulations, penalties for those caught cheating would be severe.

According to media reports, Wells Fargo said that it assessed around $98 million in rate-lock extension fees, although it contends some of those were legitimate. Wells Fargo has already paid around $200 million in fines and penalties following allegations which emerged last year that it opened millions of fake accounts on behalf of customers.

If you are a current or former mortgage industry professional with evidence of lending fraud involving FHA loans, call our mortgage whistleblower attorneys at 1-800-590-4116 for a free, confidential initial consultation.

Considering Rewards for Environmental Whistleblowers

0

There have been suggestions that the federal government add incentives for whistleblowers in a number of areas since the passage of Dodd-Frank. One area where I have not seen as much support as I would expect is for the payment of incentives to environmental whistleblowers.

We’re on the verge of the largest fine in history for the violation of the Clean Water Act.  If there was a time to push for it, now would be the time.  BP is facing a potential fine of up to $13.7 billion for violations of the Clean Water Act for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010.  Transocean already paid $1.4 billion to settle civil and criminal charges related to its role in the spill.

Calls for reform of whistleblower procedures in the securities industry gained momentum because of the unsuccessful efforts of a hedge fund manager to expose the fraud on investors perpetuated by Bernie Madoff.  The BP disaster, similarly, might have been prevented if complaints about the testing of blowout preventers at BP had been encouraged and heeded.

The Potential BP Whistleblower

An industry veteran accused BP of falsifying reports of blowout preventers passing state performance tests in Alaska. The accusations led to his testimony in a 2003 lawsuit. Alaska investigated but did not take action against the company. It only prosecuted one individual, a low level employee.

The BP spill has been blamed in part on problems with the blowout preventer at the Gulf of Mexico rig.  Would additional government scrutiny have led to changes company-wide at BP?  Would the government inspection of this aspect of the oil rig been more stringent after receiving a whistleblower report?

It is impossible to know what would have happened in this case.  Still, there could easily be other looming environmental problems that could be prevented if the EPA gave employees of the company an incentive to come forward.

The Other Environmental Pollution Trial

BP may be garnering all of the headlines, but it isn’t the only environmental trial happening right now.  Dupont is currently facing a trial in a lawsuit under the False Claims Act for failure to report the release of cancer-causing gas at a plant in Louisiana.  The lawsuit, brought by a whistleblower, is based on the company’s failure to report the release under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Environmental lawsuits are only a small part of the False Claims Act.  More typically, FCA lawsuits have been brought in cases where contractors are paid to cleanup environmental disasters and do not perform the work or overcharge for it.

As it is interpreted by the courts, though, it is no substitute for an EPA whistleblower program.

Why aren’t There Calls for Reform??

The government uses rewards in other areas to encourage insiders and other individuals to bring misconduct to light.  After large oil spills, the need for a government investigation is clear.  So it isn’t an area where the government necessarily needs someone to come forward in order to spur an investigation.  The government may be concerned that parasitic tips will be provided that don’t substantially aid the investigation.

On the other hand, EPA enforcement actions led to $163 million in fines and penalties last year and companies agreed to pay $9.7 billion to clean up contaminated sites and control pollution.  Would the opportunity to prevent billions in environmental damage not be worth the rewards paid to individuals who helped stop them from continuing?

The EPA and Whistleblowers Now

The environmental laws and the EPA don’t totally ignore whistleblowers now.  The EPA website already contains a page to allow for the reporting of environmental violations.  The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA and RCRA contain protections for whistleblowers who experience retaliation.

The Clean Air Act even authorizes awards of up to $10,000 for information about violations of the law. Unfortunately, an investigation into this provision by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility last year turned up no evidence it has been used.

Are these measures enough?  Have they been successful?  It would be interesting to see a Governmental Accountability Office report in this area similar to the one done concerning antitrust whistleblowers.

Could it Work?

Corporations are no doubt committing violations of the nation’s environmental laws on a daily basis. Incentivizing whistleblowers have proven to be a cost effective tool to help the United States learn about violations of the fraud and securities laws.  It could similarly help the EPA enforce U.S. laws against environmental pollution.  The SEC and CFTC programs could prove a model for the EPA to implement.

Given the support among environmental groups for protection of the environment and major prosecutions of Kerr-McGee and BP, it’s surprising that there haven’t been more calls for expanded use of whistleblowers in this area. Let’s hope that this is an area that gains additional support. The enforcement of our environmental laws for clean air, water and soil is a worthy place to encourage people to tip off the government to misconduct.

SEC Has Recovered Over $1 Billion Due to Whistleblower Tips

0

Over the past week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has issued total rewards of over $20 million to three SEC whistleblowers. As a result, SEC enforcement actions involving whistleblowers have now recovered more than $1 billion in financial remedies against whistleblowers.

The SEC whistleblower program has been accepting tips for more than five years now and has been repeatedly acknowledged as an important tool in the government’s arsenal to detect and stop violations of federal securities laws.

In the first announcement (last week), the SEC split more than $16 million between two whistleblowers. According to the press release, the first whistleblower alerted the agency to the misconduct that became the focus of the investigation and the cornerstone of the enforcement action. The second SEC whistleblower on this matter provided significant additional information and provided ongoing cooperation that saved significant time and agency resources.

One interesting aspect of this announcement was that the second whistleblower received a similar award to the first. Although the SEC whistleblower program favors the first person to provide information to the U.S. Government, it makes clear that there is still substantial value to the Government in receiving information after the investigation has already started.

In the second announcement (two days ago), the SEC paid a former company insider more than $4.1 million for reporting a widespread, multi-year violation of the securities laws. According to the press release, the whistleblower was a foreign national working outside of the United States. The individual alerted the SEC to the fraud and provided assistance throughout the investigation.

No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards. When Congress set up the whistleblower programs in the Dodd-Frank Act, it committed a certain amount of money in the budget to the payment of whistleblower awards. As a result, rewards are not paid out of the amount of funds recovered even though the amount of funds paid are expressed as a percentage of the money collected from the enforcement action.

More awards are expected. In the financial reports released about the program last month, the SEC recognized contingent liabilities of $221 million. This suggests that there are at least $200 million more in awards announcements coming.

Switch from GAAP to IFRS could expose accounting fraud to whistleblowers.

0

Last week, James Schnurr, the new chief accountant for the Securities and Exchange Commission, told reporters that he was reviewing prior agency work on the potential accounting switch from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The transition, which the SEC has been considering since at least 2007, will be revisited again by Scnhurr, a partner at Deloitte LLP prior to starting at the SEC a month ago. No decision has been made on the ultimate course of action the agency will pursue, although it will have implications for the method of accounting used by public companies distributing financial statements to shareholders.

The Wall Street Journal identified computer software and wireless communications as two industries where this transition could lead to dramatic changes in corporate accounting. In areas where GAAP and IFRS differ, there is the possibility that the rule switch could potentially expose accounting irregularities at large corporations as historical treatments are re-examined or lead to new situations of accounting fraud if companies attempt to adopt more favorable treatments during the transition.

More than 100 countries including the European Union currently use IFRS. The United States still uses GAAP in company-issued financial statements. When measured by market capitalization, more than half of the world’s companies still use US GAAP.

DEVELOPMENT OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

GAAP has been used extensively in the United States since the 1930s. Development started during the Great Depression as the country needed a way to restore confidence in the financial statements of corporations. The SEC encouraged the private sector to develop the accounting standards in 1938.

The movement for development of a set of international accounting standards started to grow in the 1960s. In the 1970s, the Financial Accounting Standards Board was created and began developing the International Accounting Standards. In 2001, the International Accounting Standards Board took over development and the name change to IFRS happened.

In 2005, companies began using IFRS in the European Union. Canada replaced its GAAP with IFRS in 2011. Japan has been promoting greater use of IFRS on a voluntary basis.

The SEC began exploring convergence with the IFRS set by the IASB in 2007. The initial roadmap published in 2008 suggested the potential for use by US issuers as early as 2014. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, “concerns about cost, implementation and the burden on smaller companies” stalled momentum.

IMPLICATIONS FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS

If new rules are adopted, the transition may expose problematic accounting treatments currently on the books or lead to new cases of accounting fraud. If the transition happens, and accountants are asked to adopt questionable accounting practices, they should consider the appropriate response given available options at their employer, the company and the SEC. The SEC whistleblower program or even the IRS program are options.

The IESBA is still working on a new code of ethics for professional accountants but the proposed guidelines currently open the door for an accountant to follow their conscience and report suspected noncompliance with laws and regulations.

Evaluating Cryptocurrencies for Potential Whistleblower Cases

0

Cryptocurrency, led by bitcoin, has become a hot topic in the mainstream media recently. Both the CME and Nasdaq have announced plans to introduce trading in bitcoin futures. And the investing community continues to be split between those who believe it is the future of currency and those who believe it is a bubble or, worse, a fraud, as Jamie Dimon called it in September.

There are many big questions with uncertain answers about virtual currencies, including the right valuation, whether it is in a bubble, or how fraud will be dealt with given its current state of regulation. Amid these questions though, it seems almost certain that there will be more whistleblower cases involving bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in the future. So we thought it worth beginning to talk about some of the issues that we are seeing.

In 2014, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) called virtual currencies such as bitcoin the “Wild West” of financial products. However, the SEC has since made it clear that they consider qualifying ICOs subject to the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. The CFTC also came out with a publication in October 2017 that reiterated its 2015 stance that bitcoin and other such assets are commodities.

It seems likely that there will be many instances of unregistered offerings. A former lawyer for the SEC recently spoke at the ICO Forward Summit and suggested that there might be the creation of an assembly line for enforcement actions where the SEC issues a subpoena to participants in an ICO and then brings a lawsuit if the facts match a particular pattern of misconduct. As it relates to SEC whistleblowers, it is worth noting that there needs to be $1 million recovered in order to qualify for a reward.

There are also expected to be instances of ICO fraud. A company that raised nearly $375,000 through an initial coin offering, Confido, recently deleted its website and investors have lost contact with the company. According to media reports, the background of the CEO appears to be fake since two of the three companies on it have confirmed that they have no record of him. The cryptocurrency exchange which Confido used to launch its ICO has announced that it will reimburse investors.

There have also been cybercrimes. Nikkei Asian Review called digital currency thefts a record in Japan when hacking led to more than half a million dollars in reported cybercrimes in the first half of 2017. The cases involved unauthorized computer access to take bitcoin, ethereum, and Ripples’s XRP. Although the general hacking case is probably not eligible for a whistleblower reward, the hacking of a regulated entity like an investment bank to take bitcoins they are holding for customers could be a very different matter and get the attention of regulators.

There will probably also be IRS enforcement actions started as a result of IRS whistleblower tips. This is one area that the IRS has been digging into recently. A federal court has partially granted a request from the IRS for information about users of Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange allowing buy/sell trading functionality in 33 countries including the United States. According to the IRS in the request, less than 1,000 taxpayers identified capital gains or losses on IRS Form 8949 in each of the years 2013 through 2015. Given the popularity of virtual currency, the IRS obviously suspects that there is a great deal of tax underpayments among those earning profits from buying and selling bitcoins.

We’re keeping an eye out for other potential whistleblower cases that develop in this area. It is a topic that may seem like it is moving faster than the current regulation, but fast-growing new securities can lead to big government fines as a result of misconduct. It has not been that long since the government fined corporations billions for their conduct with respect to credit default swaps and residential mortgage backed securities from the recent financial crisis. After all, the credit default swap market was once also referred to as the Wild West.

Collected Proceeds Debate Continues in IRS Whistleblower Cases and Congress

0

The Justice Department has appealed a decision by the U.S. Tax Court last year to provide an IRS whistleblower reward based upon a criminal fine and civil forfeitures. The Government’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit attempts to reverse a favorable decision for whistleblowers on the definition of collected proceeds used in the terms of the IRS whistleblower program.

The case involves the proceeds of a $74 settlement where portions were allocated to a tax resolution, a criminal fine, a civil forfeiture of fees received for its services, and the relinquishment of claims to money previously forfeited. IRS rewards are required to be paid on collected proceeds. The IRS took the position in Tax Court that only fines received pursuant to Title 26 are collected proceeds according to the law. The Tax Court sided with the whistleblowers, refusing to limit the scope of the term collected proceeds.

It appears based on the Government’s appeal that the United States will continue to oppose a broad interpretation of the term.  According to the United States, money recovered from a civil forfeiture or criminal fine are not eligible to be counted as collected proceeds and thus the tax whistleblower is not entitled to a portion of that money.

The appeal might largely be irrelevant in the future.  Senator Grassley’s amendment to the Senate’s tax legislation to define the term collected proceeds in the IRS Whistleblower program was adopted and is currently part of the legislation under consideration. If the bill is adopted without changes by the Senate and the provision survives reconciliation, it would define collected proceeds eligible for awards to include: (1) penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts, and (2) any proceeds under enforcement programs that the Treasury has delegated to the IRS the authority to administer, enforce, or investigate, including criminal fines and civil forfeitures, and violations of reporting requirements.

The Senate is expected to vote on the tax bill today with Senator Grassley’s amendment.  It would then face reconciliation with the terms of the tax bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Call Now