Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the election of its newest partners, Jennifer H. Bouriat and Christopher A. Iacono.
“It is rewarding to observe the professional acumen and development of Jennifer Bouriat and Christopher Iacono and to enthusiastically welcome them into the Partnership,” said Bill Pietragallo.
Ms. Bouriat is a member of the Government Enforcement, Compliance and White Collar Litigation Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Pittsburgh office. Ms. Bouriat is experienced in all stages of white collar criminal defense matters including representing both individuals and international corporations in internal investigations, complex litigation, and criminal proceedings. She earned her J.D., cum laude, from Brooklyn Law School, where she was a member of the Journal of Law and Policy and a Dean’s Merit Scholar. She earned her undergraduate degree from Wake Forest University.
Mr. Iacono is a member of the Government Enforcement, Compliance and White Collar Litigation ; Health Care; and Litigation Practice Groups and is based in the Philadelphia office. He has significant experience handling multi-lines casualty claims. In addition to general liability matters, Mr. Iacono focuses his litigation practice on white collar criminal defense, internal investigations, compliance, health care litigation, complex commercial litigation, SEC enforcement action defense and professional licensing litigation. Mr. Iacono earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Widener University School of Law and his undergraduate degree at Ursinus College.
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a regional litigation and business law firm with a national client base. In addition to its Pittsburgh and Philadelphia offices, the firm has offices in Sharon, Pennsylvania; Steubenville, Ohio; and Weirton, West Virginia. For more information, visit our website at www.PIETRAGALLO.com. Read More
Laura C. Bunting will be presenting, “Social Media: Legal Issues When Employees Log-On (Inside and Outside of the Workplace),” at the Pittsburgh Human Resources Association’s 70th Annual Conference & Exhibition in Mars, PA on October 9, 2018. Read More
Articles in This Issue:
Cyber-Attack and Cost of Remediation
American Arbitration Association Introduces New Fixed/Capped Fee Arbitration
Direct Evidence of Contamination is not Required to Prove Violations of the Clean Streams Act
From the Black Market to the Mainstream: The First Decade of Cryptocurrency
Things to Consider when Financing Construction Projects in Islamic Majority States
Related Information:
Fall 2018 Edition Read More
More Than Just Taxes: Considering the Effects of the New Government Reporting Requirements
The sprawling new federal tax law, enacted early this year, has engendered great controversy about systemic issues like wealth distribution, deficit expansion, and job creation. Hidden in the maelstrom is a rather uncontroversial provision that attempts to bring predictability and efficiency to the process of seeking tax deductions for payments made to the government in satisfaction of a settlement agreement or judgment. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies already have begun to apply this provision to civil defendants. As this article explains, practitioners must not only understand the tax consequences of the new law, but also its potential effect on the availability of insurance coverage for their clients.
Breaking Down the Text
Payments to a private party in settlement of a claim or to satisfy a judgment are typically deductible as business expenses under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code. When the payment is made to a government entity, however, the picture changes: Any part of a settlement or judgment considered a “fine or similar penalty” historically was not a deductible business expense for public policy reasons.1 In other words, a deduction would not be permitted if it “would frustrate sharply defined national or state policies proscribing particular types of conduct, evidenced by some governmental declaration thereof.”2 Treasury regulations (circularly) define a “fine or similar penalty” to include amounts “[p]aid as a civil penalty imposed by Federal, State, or local law … or in settlement of the taxpayer’s actual or potential liability for a fine or penalty (civil or criminal).”3 However, the regulations exclude “compensatory damages … paid to a government” from the definition.4
The new tax law, which sports the snappy title, “An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018,” maintains that distinction. Read More
Marc Stephen Raspanti will be speaking at a False Claims Act Enforcement Roundtable on September 27, 2018 from 4:00-6:30pm in Miami, Florida. This event is being co-hosted by Pietragallo, Morgan Lewis, the Florida chapter of the Women’s White Collar Defense Association, and the American Bar Association Qui Tam Subcommittee for a discussion on False Claims Act Enforcement with perspectives from the government, relators’ counsel, and defense bar. Read More
Marc Stephen Raspanti will be presenting “30 Years in the Trenches: A False Claims Act Litigator’s Unique Perspectives” at the Kentucky Health Law Institute in Lexington, KY. Read More
Michael A. Morse authored “What Compliance Officers Should Know About State False Claims Acts” which was published in September 2018 Compliance Today, a publication of the Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA).
Reprint permission granted.
Related Information:
What Compliance Officers Should Know About State False Claims Acts Read More
Laura C. Bunting will be moderating, “Potential Ethical Pitfalls in the Rapidly Changing Legal Landscape,” at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Real Property & Probate Annual Retreat on August 10,2018. Read More
