Appeals Court Revives Insurance Bad Faith Case in $7.5M Verdict
August 27, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a Massachusetts case alleging insurance bad faith after a food service distributor’s insurer failed to propose a fair settlement. The ruling stems from plaintiff Paula Appleton’s $7.5 million jury verdict following a collision with a company truck. Court records revealed that internal reports from AIG Claims, on behalf of National Union Fire Insurance, estimated damages between $6.5 million and $8.9 million more than a year before trial. Despite these assessments, the insurer refused to raise its $2.65 million offer. Court’s Reasoning on Insurance Bad Faith The appeals court held that under Massachusetts law, insurers must make good-faith settlement efforts when damages are “reasonably clear.” The refusal to increase an offer in line with internal evaluations can constitute insurance bad faith, even if the final amount is disputed. The decision reinforces that insurers who disregard their own evidence of liability and damages risk exposure to significant legal consequences. Broader Implications for Policyholders This ruling underscores the legal obligation of insurers to protect policyholders by pursuing fair settlement practices. For victims, it highlights the importance of challenging settlement delays or undervaluation, particularly in cases involving catastrophic injuries. For comprehensive insight into what constitutes bad faith in Massachusetts and how the law protects policyholders, check out this excellent breakdown in the Boston Bar Journal on enforcing the implied covenant of good faith under G.L. Chapter 176D(9)(f). FAQs: Insurance Bad Faith Case Details What does insurance bad faith mean in Massachusetts law? Insurance bad faith occurs when an insurer fails to make a fair settlement offer even when damages and liability are reasonably clear. Why did the appeals court revive the case? The court ruled the insurer may have acted in bad faith by refusing to increase its offer despite internal reports showing damages were far higher. How much was the original verdict tied to this insurance bad faith dispute? The plaintiff, Paula Appleton, secured a $7.5 million jury verdict in state court before the appeal. What are the broader implications of this ruling? The decision highlights insurers’ legal duty to protect policyholders and ensure good-faith settlement practices. Stay informed on insurance litigation and fraud cases. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for the latest legal news and expert analysis. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Burr & Forman Faces Malpractice Claims in $8M Healthcare Fraud Case
August 19, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – A Georgia federal judge has refused to dismiss malpractice and fiduciary duty claims against Burr & Forman LLP, keeping the law firm in the middle of a high-profile lawsuit tied to an alleged multimillion-dollar healthcare fraud scheme involving The Aliera Companies. The ruling highlights how legal professionals can become entangled in healthcare fraud disputes when their actions, advice, or oversight are alleged to have supported questionable financial practices. At the center of the case are allegations that Burr & Forman and its partner, Jennifer Moseley, played a role in structuring business transactions that enabled Aliera’s founders to divert millions from healthcare sharing ministries. These ministries, often marketed as faith-based alternatives to traditional insurance, have drawn increasing regulatory scrutiny due to fraud risks and misuse. By leaving the malpractice and fiduciary duty claims intact, the court signaled that the intersection of law firms and healthcare fraud will continue to be a closely watched area of litigation. Judge Denies Dismissal of Key Claims U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee ruled that Burr & Forman and its partner, Jennifer Moseley, must largely face claims brought by bankruptcy trustees overseeing the fallout of Aliera’s collapse. The trustees allege that the firm assisted Aliera’s founders, Tim Moses and Shelley Steele, in siphoning millions from the company through improper transactions. Judge Boulee rejected the defense that Burr & Forman merely completed tasks within its professional engagement, emphasizing that attorneys must perform with “ordinary care, skill, and diligence.” He also noted that breach of fiduciary duty was explicitly included in the firm’s engagement letter, making dismissal inappropriate. Limited Dismissal on Aiding and Abetting Counts The court dismissed only two counts alleging that Burr & Forman aided and abetted a fiduciary breach. Georgia law restricts aiding and abetting claims to third parties, and the court found that Burr & Forman was not a legal “stranger” to the arrangement. Allegations of Fraud Through Healthcare Sharing Ministries The trustees’ lawsuit asserts that Aliera used healthcare sharing ministries (HCSMs) to sell plans that charged excessive fees while denying promised health coverage. One such partnership with Anabaptist Healthshare allegedly allowed Aliera and its subsidiary Unity Healthshare Inc. to collect millions each month. Burr & Forman and Moseley are accused of helping the founders establish shell companies, draft questionable promissory notes, and facilitate transfers that funneled over $8 million out of the business. According to the trustees, these transfers also went toward paying Moses’ restitution obligations from a prior fraud conviction. Broader Fallout and Pending Criminal Charges Judge Boulee also dismissed the firm’s argument that liability should be limited to events occurring before bankruptcy. The court noted that regulatory actions, class action lawsuits, and significant financial penalties began almost immediately after Aliera launched operations. Meanwhile, Moses and Steele face separate criminal charges in Texas for allegedly operating an unauthorized insurance business, with proceedings still ongoing. Legal Representation The trustees are represented by Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, Terry D. Jackson PC, and Mehri & Skalet PLLC. Burr & Forman is represented by King & Spalding LLP. For readers seeking a deeper understanding of fiduciary duties in legal malpractice claims, visit the American Bar Association’s guidance on fiduciary obligations. FAQs: Burr & Forman Healthcare Fraud Case What is the Burr & Forman healthcare fraud case about? The case involves allegations that Burr & Forman LLP helped the founders of The Aliera Companies embezzle millions while misleading consumers through healthcare sharing ministries. Why did the judge allow malpractice and fiduciary duty claims to proceed? The judge ruled that attorneys must exercise professional care and diligence, and because fiduciary duties were part of Burr & Forman’s engagement, dismissal was not appropriate. What legal risks do law firms face in healthcare fraud cases? Law firms can face malpractice and fiduciary duty claims if they are found to have facilitated or ignored fraudulent activities while providing legal services. How does healthcare fraud impact consumers and the legal system? Healthcare fraud cases often leave consumers with unpaid medical bills, denied coverage, or unexpected expenses. For the legal system, these cases increase regulatory oversight, trigger class actions, and expand liability risks for professionals tied to the fraudulent schemes. Stay ahead of legal and financial news that shapes the future of compliance, litigation, and corporate accountability. Subscribe now to JacobiJournal.com for daily insights and expert analysis. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
DOJ Seeks $11M in Civil Forfeiture Over Miami DME Fraud Scheme
August 8, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — The Department of Justice has filed a civil forfeiture complaint to recover nearly $11 million in alleged proceeds from durable medical equipment (DME) fraud involving two Miami-based clinics. Authorities claim that Vida Med Center LLC and Med-Union Medical Center fraudulently billed Medicare for over $33 million in medically unnecessary DME claims between 2020 and 2022. According to the DOJ, the clinics operated a kickback-driven scheme in which patients were prescribed braces and orthotic devices that were not medically necessary and often never delivered. These services were submitted as reimbursable to Medicare using falsified documentation and physician approvals. Civil Forfeiture Sought in DME Fraud Scheme Federal investigators tracked the fraudulent proceeds through multiple financial accounts and shell entities, allegedly used to obscure the origin of the funds. The civil forfeiture action, filed in the Southern District of Florida, aims to recover approximately $10.9 million in assets, including luxury vehicles and real estate tied to the scheme. This case is part of a broader initiative by the DOJ and the Medicare Fraud Strike Force to curb fraudulent billing in the durable medical equipment sector. Authorities say DME fraud schemes frequently exploit vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries and drive up public healthcare costs. Pattern of Abuse in DME Billing Both clinics have come under scrutiny for their roles in a growing pattern of DME fraud forfeiture actions emerging nationwide. The use of deceptive marketing, forged prescriptions, and aggressive billing tactics has led to increased oversight of DME suppliers and prescribing physicians. The DOJ emphasized that civil forfeiture serves as a powerful tool to disrupt financial incentives behind Medicare fraud without waiting for a criminal conviction. What’s Next? The civil action does not require criminal charges to proceed but may lead to future indictments if investigators uncover further evidence of conspiracy or wire fraud. Meanwhile, regulators are urging healthcare providers to tighten compliance protocols and ensure documentation aligns with Medicare requirements. The DOJ’s pursuit of assets in this case signals renewed focus on financial recovery alongside traditional enforcement methods. For more on healthcare fraud enforcement, visit the U.S. Department of Justice Health Care Fraud Unit. FAQs: What to Know About DME Fraud Forfeiture What is DME fraud forfeiture? DME fraud forfeiture refers to the government’s civil action to seize assets gained through fraudulent durable medical equipment billing, even without a criminal conviction. How much was billed in the Miami DME fraud case? The two clinics allegedly billed Medicare over $33 million in fraudulent DME claims, prompting a DOJ effort to recover $11 million in illicit proceeds. Why does the DOJ use civil forfeiture in healthcare fraud cases? Civil forfeiture allows the DOJ to quickly seize assets tied to fraud without awaiting a criminal trial, preserving funds for potential restitution and disrupting ongoing schemes. Never miss an update. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for weekly enforcement summaries, case insights, and legal analysis direct to your inbox. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Bonita Man Pleads Guilty in $5.8M Medicare DME Fraud Scheme
July 16, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Federal prosecutors have announced that a Bonita, California resident has pleaded guilty to his role in a $5.8 million Medicare DME fraud scheme. The case highlights ongoing Department of Justice efforts to hold durable medical equipment (DME) providers accountable for fraudulent billing and illegal kickback arrangements. How the Scheme Worked According to court filings, the defendant operated two DME companies that submitted claims to Medicare for braces and medical devices that were not medically necessary—or never provided. He admitted to paying over $227,000 in kickbacks to patient recruiters in exchange for beneficiary referrals, bypassing proper physician oversight. The fraudulent billing resulted in Medicare reimbursing approximately $3.48 million, all of which is now subject to forfeiture and restitution. Federal Enforcement Continues The guilty plea is part of a broader federal crackdown on DME-related fraud schemes that exploit billing loopholes and ignore patient eligibility standards. Sentencing is scheduled for October 10, 2025, and the defendant faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $500,000. “Fraud schemes like these harm both taxpayers and vulnerable patients,” said federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. “We remain committed to identifying and dismantling networks that seek to abuse Medicare for personal profit.” Read the full DOJ press release: Justice.gov. Compliance Warning for Providers This case serves as a serious compliance warning to DME suppliers across the country. It highlights how Medicare DME fraud continues to be aggressively pursued by federal investigators, especially when schemes involve false claims, kickbacks, or unlicensed brokers. Providers are strongly urged to audit their internal controls, including referral relationships, billing practices, and patient documentation protocols. Failure to verify the legitimacy of prescriptions, or working with unvetted third-party marketers, may expose suppliers to liability. Authorities stress that the use of shell entities, manipulated patient records, and forged medical documents are common patterns in fraudulent DME operations—and will trigger enforcement. Ensuring full alignment with Medicare’s billing and compliance standards is now more critical than ever as oversight efforts intensify. FAQs: About Medicare DME Fraud What is Medicare DME fraud? Medicare DME fraud involves billing the government for durable medical equipment that is not medically necessary, not provided, or obtained through illegal referrals. Why is the Bonita case significant? It demonstrates how DME providers can be prosecuted for even seemingly routine billing violations, especially when kickbacks and forged documents are involved. What are common red flags for DME fraud investigations? Suspicious billing patterns, high-volume referrals from non-physician sources, and missing documentation of medical necessity are key triggers for audits and enforcement actions. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for weekly updates on healthcare fraud, regulatory enforcement, and compliance trends impacting providers nationwide. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Genetic Testing Scams: The New Face of Medicare Fraud
June 18, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Genetic testing scams are quickly becoming a major form of Medicare fraud, targeting seniors with misleading offers and unauthorized billing schemes. These scams usually begin with a cold call, a booth at a senior center, or even a misleading TV ad claiming to offer free DNA testing for cancer or other conditions. Once a patient provides their Medicare number, scammers bill the government for unnecessary or completely fake tests—costing taxpayers millions. Although these scams promise insight into personal health, they rarely provide any medical value. Instead, the goal is to exploit Medicare’s coverage of genetic testing. A Growing Threat to Seniors and Taxpayers The appeal of genetic insights makes this scam effective, particularly among vulnerable senior populations who are more likely to trust medical professionals or health-related offers. Fraudsters often employ aggressive marketing tactics and fake affiliations with Medicare or healthcare providers to establish trust and gain access to sensitive private information. Furthermore, these schemes often involve third-party labs and marketers who split profits from fraudulent claims, making detection even more challenging. This multi-layered setup allows scam operations to avoid early scrutiny while maximizing profit. Protecting the Public and Medicare Government agencies, including the Office of Inspector General and CMS, have issued warnings and are actively investigating such schemes. Still, public awareness is key. Patients should never share Medicare information with unfamiliar sources or agree to free tests without consulting their doctor. Ultimately, understanding how genetic testing scams work is the first step in stopping them. Clear regulations, routine audits, and public education will be crucial in protecting both patient trust and public funds. For more official information on Medicare-related scams, visit the Office of Inspector General (OIG) fraud alerts. FAQs: About Genetic Testing Scams How do genetic testing scams target Medicare patients? Genetic testing scams often begin with unsolicited calls, senior center booths, or deceptive ads offering free DNA tests. Scammers collect Medicare numbers to bill for unnecessary or fake tests, exploiting both seniors and the Medicare system. What risks do seniors face from genetic testing scams? Victims of genetic testing scams risk identity theft, compromised medical data, and contributing to Medicare fraud unknowingly. These scams often leave patients without any valuable health insights despite claims. How can Medicare beneficiaries avoid genetic testing scams? To avoid genetic testing scams, seniors should only undergo genetic testing recommended by their personal doctor. Medicare numbers should never be shared with unsolicited callers, marketers, or unfamiliar medical providers. Stay protected against healthcare fraud. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for ongoing updates on Medicare scams, fraud enforcement, and patient safety insights. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Hospice Fraud and Mobile Job Scams: Identity Theft in Plain Sight
June 5, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Hospice fraud and mobile job scams have taken on new dimensions, particularly in healthcare and employment, where fraudulent actors are exploiting systemic vulnerabilities. Investigators have uncovered a disturbing trend: scammers are enrolling Medicare beneficiaries in hospice care without their knowledge, while fraudsters are targeting job seekers to steal personal information. Hospice Fraud: When Compassion Becomes a Cover Alarmingly, fraudsters are enrolling individuals, many of whom are not terminally ill, into hospice programs to generate false Medicare claims. In many cases, these schemes often involve identity theft, where scammers gain access to Medicare numbers through deceptive marketing, door-to-door pitches, or unsolicited calls. Once enrolled, victims often remain unaware until legitimate Medicare services are denied. This not only jeopardizes patient care but also defrauds government programs and taxpayers. Mobile Job Scams: The New Phishing Frontier Fraudsters now target job seekers through mobile-based job scams, posing as recruiters and sending convincing phishing emails.. These messages often include links that install malware like the AppLite Banker Trojan—designed to steal login credentials and sensitive information. What makes these attacks particularly dangerous is their sophistication. Fraudsters clone job websites and create professional-looking recruiter profiles to deceive and exploit their targets. What Legal and Compliance Teams Should Do The key to prevention lies in proactive vigilance and system-wide awareness. Here’s what experts recommend: Moreover, fraudulent hospice enrollment and mobile job scams are more than financial crimes—they erode public trust and endanger lives. With billions at stake, legal professionals, healthcare providers, and compliance officers must act as the first line of defense. FAQs: About Hospice Fraud, Job Scams, and Identity Theft What is hospice fraud and how does it happen? Hospice fraud involves enrolling people into Medicare-funded hospice care without their knowledge to submit false claims. How can job seekers avoid mobile job scams? Always verify recruiter emails, avoid clicking suspicious links, and never share sensitive information through text or messaging apps. Where can I report identity theft in healthcare or employment? Report healthcare fraud to Medicare.gov/fraud and employment-related scams to the FTC at IdentityTheft.gov. Stay ahead of rising threats like hospice fraud and job-based identity theft. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for weekly enforcement alerts, fraud case analysis, and compliance guidance tailored to healthcare and legal professionals. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Wildfire Alert Glitch Triggers Accidental Warning to Millions in LA County
May 15, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Wildfire Alert Glitch: A serious glitch in Los Angeles County’s emergency alert system triggered widespread panic on January 9, when a wildfire warning meant for a small region was mistakenly sent to millions of residents across the entire county. The error occurred just two days after wildfires tore through hillsides, leaving residents anxious and on edge. Although the alert targeted individuals in the San Fernando Valley under evacuation warning for the Kenneth Fire, a system failure caused it to reach more than 10 million people countywide. Wildfire Alert Glitch Exposes Vendor Failure in Targeted Warning System According to a report from Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Los Angeles County officials correctly configured the message to notify only affected neighborhoods. However, Genasys—the county’s emergency alert vendor—failed to properly transmit the location data into the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). The report indicates that a network disruption likely prevented the location coding from being saved. As a result, the alert went out without geographic targeting, leading to widespread confusion. “The initial false alert resulted from technology issues with third-party vendor Genasys,” the report explained. Delays and Failures Across Multiple Wildfires The January incident highlights larger issues in how Los Angeles County manages wildfire alerts and evacuation notices. During the Eaton Fire in Altadena, officials sent evacuation orders long after homes had already caught fire. In another case—the Palisades Fire—many residents saw flames approaching and evacuated before receiving any official warnings. To address these failures, LA County commissioned a third-party review of its emergency response policies. Officials have already interviewed dozens of first responders, and the next progress report is scheduled for July 27. Legal Exposure and Insurance Fallout Beyond public confusion, the mistaken alert raises serious liability concerns for both government agencies and private contractors. Errors like this could: Consequently, state and local governments may soon reevaluate their contracts with alert system vendors and adopt tighter safeguards. Federal Report Calls for Urgent Reforms In his report, Rep. Garcia urged authorities to make several key improvements: “The lessons from the Kenneth Fire should not only inform reforms but drive modernization of our national alerting infrastructure,” Garcia said. Given the increasing threat of wildfires across California, local and federal governments must prioritize accuracy and reliability in emergency communications. Additional information here, FAQs: Wildfire Alert Glitch in LA County What caused the wildfire alert glitch in Los Angeles County? The wildfire alert glitch was traced back to a failure in the alert system vendor Genasys’s data integration with the federal IPAWS platform. Although county officials correctly configured the message for a specific area, a system malfunction caused the evacuation alert to be sent to over 10 million residents. This incident highlights how third-party technology flaws can lead to widespread confusion during emergency situations. Learn more from FEMA about IPAWS technology and protocols. How can residents verify if a wildfire alert is relevant to their area? When a wildfire alert glitch occurs, it’s important for residents to confirm the legitimacy and geographic relevance of alerts. Official county emergency websites, Cal Fire updates, and platforms like the FEMA IPAWS feed can help users determine if an evacuation warning applies to them specifically. Check your county’s current wildfire alerts and zones here. What steps are being taken to prevent another wildfire alert glitch? Following the January 2025 wildfire alert glitch, officials recommended reforms, including upgraded alert software, standardized emergency personnel training, and better location-targeting protocols. Lawmakers also advocate for improved oversight of private vendors contracted to manage public warning systems. These steps aim to prevent future failures in emergency communications. Stay informed. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for expert analysis of public risk, emergency systems, litigation, and insurance coverage. 📚 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
SB 536 Expands Workers’ Comp Fraud Reporting: EDD to Join Enforcement Loop
May 05, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Workers comp fraud oversight could soon tighten in California, addressing one of the state’s most persistent cost drivers in the insurance system. On May 5, 2025, lawmakers introduced SB 536, authored by Senator Bob Archuleta (D), to significantly expand fraud reporting requirements and allow greater data-sharing between agencies. The measure seeks to close long-standing enforcement gaps by integrating the Employment Development Department (EDD) into the existing reporting network. Supporters argue that by giving investigators broader access to payroll data—while maintaining strict privacy safeguards—the bill could help uncover fraudulent schemes earlier, prevent premium underreporting, and reduce financial losses that ultimately impact honest employers and employees. EDD Added to Workers Comp Fraud Reporting Network Currently, insurers and licensed rating organizations are required to report suspected fraud to local district attorneys and the Department of Insurance Fraud Division. SB 536 would broaden this reporting chain by adding the Employment Development Department (EDD) as a mandatory recipient of these referrals. The inclusion of EDD is intended to close long-standing enforcement gaps. Payroll fraud, such as underreporting employee wages or misclassifying workers to reduce insurance costs, frequently overlaps with workers comp fraud schemes. By having EDD directly notified of suspected fraud, investigators can cross-reference wage records, employer classifications, and tax data against insurance filings. This coordinated approach could help uncover fraud patterns that might otherwise go undetected when agencies work in isolation. For example, if an employer reports lower payroll figures to an insurer but higher amounts to another agency, that discrepancy could flag potential premium fraud. With EDD in the loop, such inconsistencies can be investigated more quickly, reducing the time it takes to build a prosecutable case. Insurers to Gain Limited Access to Payroll Records For the first time, SB 536 would allow insurers and rating organizations to request payroll data from EDD. This data could help verify suspected premium fraud. However, there are limits. The bill clearly states that personal identifying information must remain confidential. Insurers can only share data with law enforcement when submitting a formal fraud referral. This ensures that investigations are balanced with worker privacy. Improving Investigations While Preserving Rights By giving investigators access to more complete data, SB 536 aims to improve fraud detection. At the same time, it reinforces safeguards to protect workers’ personal information. The bill is set for a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 12, 2025. If passed, it could enhance fraud prevention and reduce premium inflation for honest employers. More information available here: Official Document. FAQs: About SB 536 and Workers Comp Fraud Reporting What changes does SB 536 make to workers comp fraud reporting? SB 536 adds the Employment Development Department to the workers comp fraud reporting network, allowing for better detection of overlapping payroll and premium fraud. Why is the EDD’s involvement important in workers comp fraud cases? EDD’s access to payroll data can help identify workers comp fraud more quickly, especially when it overlaps with payroll tax violations. How could SB 536 impact future workers comp fraud investigations? By expanding data sharing and reporting requirements, SB 536 could make workers comp fraud investigations faster and more accurate while protecting worker privacy. Bookmark JacobiJournal.com for expert coverage of legislative developments, fraud enforcement cases, and policy reform that affect California’s workers’ compensation landscape. From court rulings to committee hearings, we keep professionals informed and prepared. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Former California Insurance Agent Convicted for Stealing $3.7 Million in Premium Finance Fraud
A former insurance agent has pleaded guilty to wire fraud after embezzling over $3.7 million from a premium finance company, according to a California Department of Insurance (CDI) investigation. Tonja Van Roy’s Fraudulent Scheme UnveiledTonja Van Roy, 59, who previously ran an insurance agency in Northridge, California, and now resides in Las Vegas, admitted to stealing millions from AFCO Credit Corporation. The fraudulent activities spanned from January 2021 to December 2023, during which Van Roy submitted numerous fictitious loan applications through AFCO’s system, leading to the disbursement of funds directly into her trust account. Former California Insurance Agent The investigation revealed that Van Roy fabricated details on the loan applications, including fake insurance policy numbers and forged signatures, and used two addresses she rented for multiple fictitious clients. She diverted the funds for personal luxury purchases and repaid initial loans with money from subsequent fraudulent loans, mimicking a Ponzi scheme. Van Roy’s actions resulted in AFCO disbursing about $3.7 million, of which approximately $1.8 million remains unpaid after some repayments using funds from newer fraudulent loans. Legal Proceedings and Next StepsThe case, handled by the Major Frauds Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, will see Van Roy return to court for sentencing on March 31. Former California Insurance Agent For more on this and similar cases, visit JacobiJournal.com. To read further, check out the full report on Business Insurance.
Key Insights from the 2024 Bank Tax Institute: Tax Policy, Strategies, and the Election’s Impact
The 2024 Bank Tax Institute took place in Orlando during election week. Tax professionals, financial institutions, and experts gathered to discuss the future of tax policy. This year, the discussions focused on the election results, ongoing tax issues, and strategies for managing tax liabilities. This article covers the key takeaways, including the election’s impact, tax planning, and upcoming regulatory challenges. The Election’s Impact on Bank Tax Planning Much of the conference focused on the 2024 election results and the implications of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The quick election outcome shifted attention to the TCJA’s expiring provisions and their potential impact on tax planning for financial institutions. 2024 Bank Tax Institute If the TCJA is not extended, banks can expect several key changes: Though financial services transactions are not yet subject to tariffs, lobbyists continue to push against unfair targeting of banks. Many institutions argue that their already high effective tax rates make additional burdens difficult to bear. Tax Planning Strategies for Banks Tax-saving strategies were a major focus at the conference. Energy credits emerged as a key area where banks can take advantage of growing opportunities. As more energy producers come online, smaller banks gain access to tax-saving benefits. Another major topic was Bank-Owned Life Insurance. Section 1035 tax-free policy exchanges offer banks a chance to replace policies acquired under less-than-ideal market conditions. Politics, Pending Legislation, and Regulatory Changes With a business-focused administration in power, many attendees hope for reduced regulatory burdens. The current regulatory environment causes delays in mergers and acquisitions. These delays lead to higher administrative costs and the loss of valuable resources. IRS Tax Enforcement and State-Level Scrutiny A session featured Holly Paz, Deputy Commissioner of the IRS’s Large Corporation division. She discussed the agency’s enhanced enforcement efforts, fueled by additional funds from Congress. These measures will likely lead to more audits for banks in the near future. At the state and local levels, more states are ramping up their examination of banks. This growing scrutiny is adding to the tax burden for both financial institutions and individual shareholders.contributing to a higher tax burden for both financial institutions and individual shareholders. For more insights on tax policy developments, visit Jacobi Journal. You can also read the full article and learn more from the original source here. Stay tuned as we continue to monitor these changes and provide you with timely updates on tax policies that affect the banking sector.