IRS denies reward claim by whistleblower banker
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service has rejected a reward claim made by a whistleblower, former banker Joseph Insinga, who had sued the agency in a closely watched case.
In a letter dated April 15, the IRS told Insinga that he was not entitled to a reward. A copy of the letter was provided by his attorney, Andrew Carr.
The information Insinga gave to the IRS in May 2007 about several companies, which he alleged dodged taxes, did not result in collection of any additional taxes, the IRS said.
Insinga will appeal the rejection, Carr said by email.
Insinga sued the IRS last year, trying to force it to announce a determination on his claims after years of being kept in the dark about the status of his case.
Other whistleblowers and lawyers had hoped the Insinga case would bring more clarity to how the IRS handles whistleblower claims, said Bryan Skarlatos, a tax lawyer at the firm of Kostelanetz & Fink who represents taxpayers and whistleblowers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Scientists hope tiny robotic bee’s big dreams take flight
- Utah woman gets 5 years in baby sitter’s overdose death
- New rules for highly addictive, hydrocodone-containing medications near
- $1T cost to sustain fighter jet in cross hairs
- GPS stations show drought-stricken California — not pushed downward by 63 trillion gallons of water — is rising
- EPA cites risks from air toxics in urban areas, improvements
- Police say couple wanted Amish girls for slaves
- States can apply for more time before using student scores to evaluate teachers
- Scathing report says college trustees fail in mission
- Don’t eat tuna, Consumer Reports tells mothers-to-be
- $132.5M ransom asked for Foley