Department of Treasury Releases Updated Guidance To Financial Institutions On Informal Value Transfer Systems

/0 Comments/in , /by

On September 1, 2010, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the US Department of the Treasury issued a guidance for financial institutions on Suspicious Activity Reports (“SAR”) involving Informal Value Transfer Systems (“IVTS”).

The Department of the Treasury defines an IVTS as “any system, mechanism, or network of people that receives money for the purpose of making the funds or an equivalent value payable to a third party in another geographic location, whether or not in the same form.” IVTS transfers usually occur through non-bank financial institutions whose primary business may not be the transmission of money.

IVTS are allowed to operate in the US as Money Services Businesses (“MSB”) as long as they follow applicable federal and state laws. IVTS are required to register with FinCEN to operate within the US. Additionally, IVTS must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act’s provisions regarding anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. More information on how IVTS operate, how financial institutions may be used in the IVTS process, and potential indicators of IVTS activity can be found in FinCEN Advisory 33.

In its most recent guidance FinCEN states “if a financial institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that an ITVS is operating in violation of the registration requirement under the BSA for money transmitters not acting solely as agents of others, or, even if registered, is being used in the illegal transmittal of funds, a SAR should be filed.” FinCEN also advised that when financial institutions complete a SAR involving an IVTS that it note the abbreviation IVTS in the narrative of the SAR and include an explanation as to why the financial institution suspects that an IVTS is involved in reportable activity. The full guidance can be read at FinCEN September 1, 2010 Guidance.

FinCEN’s purpose in issuing this guidance is to make SARs involving IVTS more helpful to law enforcement. FinCEN reports that IVTS can be used to launder money and possibly fund terrorist activities throughout the world. For insight and strategies on maintaining compliance with state and federal regulation of financial services, please contact Fuerst Ittleman at 305-350-5690 or contact@fidjlaw.com.

J&J could face further regulatory action if intent of GMP violation proven – attorneys

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Pharmawire
by Kirsty Barnes
2010-08-24

Intelligence Details

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) may face future regulatory action if the result of an internal investigation over its well-publicized good manufacturing practice (GMP) issues uncover evidence of intent to violate FDA rules, attorneys said. The situation could take months to unravel, they noted.

J&J said it would not comment on speculation.

Since September 2009, J&J subsidiary McNeil Consumer Healthcare has undertaken eight drug recalls due to potential contamination of big name drugs including Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl and serious problems at a number of its manufacturing sites have been publicized.

After the situation did not resolve satisfactorily, the FDA held a meeting in February with McNeil and J&J executives. Media reports have raised questions over the firms’ handling of the GMP issues and recalls and a Congressional hearing was held in May. Investigations remain ongoing with the FDA, and J&J also recently announced it is now being investigated by several state attorneys general and has received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Pennsylvania.

There are "real problems" at J&J and it is in a lot of trouble, said David Goldsmith, president and senior consultant at Goldsmith Pharmacovigilance and Systems in New York. Chad Landmon, a partner at Axinn Veltrop and Harkrider, questioned how this will end for J&J, adding: "The FDA is very serious and concerned about the recall and the allegations being made against the firm."

Mitchell Fuerst, managing partner of Fuerst Ittleman in Florida, said: "I’d expect some type of enforcement action on J&J," adding that the FDA is exceedingly more aggressive in the last 18 months in its enforcement.

Edward Allera, former attorney to the FDA, said the situation may not be as "black and white" as the media has portrayed it, and noted that there are a lot of people, including third party contractors, involved. "It will take a while to sort out what happened, and the facts will need to be reviewed as they evolve," he said.
The sources said the FDA has a variety of options in how to deal with the situation.

The FDA is talking to J&J’s lawyers, and whatever the investigation finds the agency will probably want some kind of court order to monitor the situation going forward, Landmon said.

Fuerst agreed that, in theory, a resolution can be reached with a memorandum of understanding but he questioned whether politically the FDA can do this. "Congress is furious" and it may not be politically possible for FDA to accept this option, so it may want a more legally binding agreement, Fuerst said. Landmon agreed that the J&J situation is a big news story, so Congress feels responsibility to get involved.

Fuerst said he expects a cease and desist order may be issued unless the company has done a lot to respond to the FDA and implement proper controls and practices. A consent decree is another option and it will likely follow a cease and desist order, said Fuerst.

One pharmacovigilence consultant said this would involve the introduction of mandatory control processes and inspections by third party inspectors to make sure the company is in compliance. "I expect in this situation to see within the next few months a consent decree or something similar," said Landmon. Allera said a consent decree is possible because of the publicity this case has generated.

Landmon said that that J&J could also be subject to a fine. Such a penalty would usually be tied to the benefit a company gained through its actions but in this case it’s difficult, said Landmon. Because the FDA is taking this so seriously, J&J could be fined a sizeable sum, in the double or triple digit millions, Landmon suggested. A potential fine USD 200-300m would not be unrealistic, agreed Goldsmith.

Allera and Fuerst said that financial penalties are possible but Fuerst noted that it would require proof of malfeasance from the internal investigation rather than a mistake that led to risky and inappropriate decisions.

It remains to be seen whether or not J&J will be prosecuted over the situation, and it depends on whether the company displayed intent to violate GMP, the sources said. Intent is hard to uncover but can be identified via emails and memos, they noted.

A prosecution decision is distinguished by whether or not actions were taken on purpose or the firm was aware of it and did nothing about it – if so, there are grounds to prosecute, Goldsmith said.

Landmon said the worst action that could be taken is a criminal action against J&J management, but this would require the FDA finding intent to commit fraud against the agency and the public. Allera said he did not think it would come to this.

The firm will be subject to more regulatory scrutiny of clinical trial manufacturing and CGP which will inadvertently slow down future new drug applications, said Goldsmith. Landmon agreed that this possibility was likely, but Allera disagreed, stating that it would not affect future approvals unless the new drugs were being made in the plants in question. Whether it filters across to other parts of the business depends on how high up the decisions were made across the business, said Fuerst.

The board may now apply pressure to remove certain senior J&J executives, the sources noted. The company has allowed its brands to deteriorate in the public eye and this affects the value of the company, which is what the Sarbanes-Oxley Act – implemented after Enron – was designed to prevent, said Fuerst.

It was announced this week that Ajit Shetty has been appointed by J&J to oversee its quality, manufacturing and compliance operations and he will report directly to CEO William Weldon.

The FDA is getting much more aggressive with big pharma which has not been the case for many years, said Fuerst.

Sources noted the example of KV Pharmaceutical’s (NYSE:KV.A) run-in with the FDA. According to SEC filings, the firm encountered recalls, seizures, manufacturing suspensions and management changes in a one year period, followed by a consent decree. It later agreed to a USD 25.8m fine to resolve a US Justice Department investigation of its troubled drug unit Ethex, which also plead guilty to two felony counts over the matter earlier this year.

"If the FDA gets more funding and more powers we will see more of this," Fuerst said.

Phone Companies Urge US Government To Loosen Telecommunications Regulations For Cuba

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Several of the largest telecommunications companies in the United States including AT&T, Verizon, and Nokia are urging the US government to ease regulations which currently prevent them from operating in Cuba. The regulations stem from the 47 year old trade embargo the US has enforced against Cuba due to the oppressive Castro regime. AT&T and Verizon are seeking a loosening of regulations to make it easier for telecommunications companies to directly connect calls to and from Cuba, while Nokia, the worlds largest mobile-phone manufacturer, is urging Washington to ease the embargo so it can export mobile-phone accessories from its US locations.

Under current rules, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has established a rate cap on the fee telecoms can pay the Cuban government for direct calls to Cuba which hampers the telecommunications industrys ability to do business in Cuba. Currently, US providers are only allowed to pay the Cuban government a fee no higher than 19 cents per call, however, Cuba demands 84 cents a call.

In June, Verizon wrote the FCC asking it to grant requests by others in the telecom industry for the FCC to waive its maximum rate cap rules. A copy of Verizons comments can be read at: Verizons reply to the FCC.

US telecoms are also interested in establishing roaming services on the island for US customers who visit the island as a first step to expanding cell phone services. Analysts believe that the mobile phone market in Cuba has the potential to be profitable given the islands population, 11.4 million, and the relative few between, 10 and 20 percent, who currently use mobile phone services.

The telecoms requests for greater access to Cuba come several months after the idea was first presented by the Obama administration. On April 13, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce entitled “Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba” in which the President said that increased contacts between Cuba and the outside world would reduce Cubans dependency on the Castro regime. President Obama directed his Secretaries to take such actions as necessary to authorize US telecommunications providers to enter into agreements to establish fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities linking the US and Cuba and to license US telecom service providers to enter into and operate roaming services agreements with Cubas telecommunications service providers. The Presidents full memorandum can be read at: White House Memo on Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba.

However, while an easing of telecommunications regulations may be in the near future, US companies looking to do business in Cuba still risk violating sanctions still in place, such as the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 that prohibits investment in Cubas telecommunications network.

For guidance on how your import/export business, or related business, can take advantage of the surging trade economy while maintaining strong regulatory compliance, contact Fuerst Ittleman at 305-350-5690 or contact@fidjlaw.com.

Distinguished Orthopaedic Surgeon Joins NeoStem’s Medical Advisory Board

/0 Comments/in , , /by

NeoStem, Inc. (“NeoStem”) recently announced the appointment of Thomas Einhorn, M.D., Chairman of Orthopaedic Surgery at Boston University to its Medical Advisory Board. NeoStem is an international biopharmaceutical company that is engaged in the development of stem cell-based therapies and building a network of adult stem cell collection centers in the United States and China that allow people to donate and store their own stem cells for their personal use in the event of a future medical need. Dr. Einhorns professional focus has been on the repair and regeneration of bone and cartilage using autologous adult stem cells, reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, and the treatment of metabolic bone disease making him an excellent addition to NeoStems Medical Advisory Board.

Dr. Einhorn is Chairman of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Biochemistry and Biomedical Engineering at Boston University. To date, he has authored over 200 peer-reviewed articles during his career. Dr. Einhorn has a distinguished career which includes serving as Chairman and President of numerous orthopaedic research societies and foundations. In addition, he has won numerous awards and served as Deputy Editor for Current Concepts Reviews for The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and on the Editorial Boards of The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Journal of Orthopaedic Research and Bone.

Wayne A. Marasco, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of NeoStems Advisory Boards, stated, “We are extremely pleased to have Dr. Einhorn join our medical advisory board. His in-depth understanding of orthopaedic injuries and the use of adult stem cells to regenerate damaged bone and cartilage will be a tremendous asset in our development of applications of adult stem cells for orthopedic injuries.”

Dr. Einhorn stated, “I am excited to join the Medical Advisory Board of an innovative, forward-looking company like NeoStem and be part of the team of experts to help advance stem cell technologies in the field of orthopaedics and assist in developing VSEL┞¢ Technology applications for orthopaedic disease. Not only has [NeoStem] put together a promising base of technologies for future stem cell treatment in orthopaedics, cardiac, skin rejuvenation and the treatment of wounds but it continues to partner with experts in other areas to facilitate meaningful [Research and Development]. This should encourage people to collect, process, and store their stem cells through NeoStems existing network of collection centers in anticipation of a variety of future personalized medicine applications.”

Federal Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Former Westar Executives

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On August 20, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson for the District of Kansas granted the United States Department of Justices motion to dismiss the charges against former Westar executives David Wittig and Douglas Lake. The charges were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could be filed again.

Wittig and Lake were charged with conspiracy and circumvention of internal controls. The former executives were accused of manipulating a proposed merger for personal benefit and using Westars legal counsel to remove other directors who challenged their actions. Authorities also alleged that Wittig and Lake submitted false reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) about their personal use of corporate aircraft. The SEC requires such reports if the added cost to the corporation for air travel exceeds $50,000. Prosecutors alleged that Wittig and Lake conspired to inflate their compensation from the company and took steps to hide their actions.

This case was the third attempt by the U.S. Department of Justice to try Wittig and Lake. The first case ended in a hung jury in December 2004. The government retried the case in early 2005 and in that second trial a jury found Wittig and Lake guilty of wire fraud, money laundering, circumvention of internal controls and conspiracy. The court also ordered millions of dollars in restitution. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the convictions in January of 2007. The 10th Circuit threw out the money laundering and wire fraud convictions because of a lack of evidence and found that jury instructions for the circumvention and conspiracy charges were flawed.

After the 10th Circuit had ruled, prosecutors announced they would seek a third trial for the charges of conspiracy and circumvention. However, prior to trial, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Skilling v United States. Defense attorneys believe that the dismissal of this most recent case is byproduct of the recent Supreme Court decision that changed the landscape of the “honest services” fraud statute.

The decision of prosecutors to drop the charges comes less than two months after the Supreme Courts landmark decision in Skilling v United States. In Skilling, the Court severely narrowed the scope of the “theft of honest services” fraud statue, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3146, by ruling that it is unconstitutionally vague except in cases involving bribery and kickback schemes. The Court ruled that federal prosecutors can no longer rely on the “theft of honest services” charge in cases involving private sector employees charged with self-dealing or undisclosed conflicts of interest without a bribery or kickback scheme. As a result of the Skilling decision, a once flexible tool in the arsenal of the federal prosecutors office has been sharply limited.

For information about Fuerst Ittlemans experience litigating white collar criminal cases please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

FDA Busy Crafting Calorie Court Regulations

/0 Comments/in , /by

The FDA has begun the process of establishing regulations to implement recent federal law that mandates calorie information be posted at many chain restaurants and vending machines throughout the United States. The mandate was signed into law on March 23, 2010, as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (“PPACA”) and requires that all restaurants with 20 or more locations post calorie counts of their products on menus, menu boards, and drive-through menus. Other nutritional information, including amounts of sodium, saturated fats and cholesterol must be made available to consumers in written form upon request. Additionally, all chain restaurants must include on their menus the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services statement on suggested daily calorie intake.

The PPACA requires chain restaurants to label the calorie content for standard menu items and self-service foods, such as buffets and salad bars. However, foods that are daily specials, limited-time offerings, or seasonal items are exempt from the calorie count legislation. Also, vending machines must display calorie disclosures for each item offered for sale unless the Nutritional Facts panel for a food is available for the customer to view prior to purchasing.

The federal calorie count legislation is intended to create a uniform national policy on nutritional information available on chain restaurant menus. PPACA is similar in design and purpose to several state laws and local ordinances requiring calorie count displays at chain restaurants. New York City currently has such a calorie count display law in effect. The National Restaurant Association supported the implementation of a federal guideline as an alternative to numerous labeling schemes that could vary from state to state.

The FDA has until March 2011, one year from the passage of the PPACA, to develop and implement regulations to enforce the calorie count mandate. Once implemented, the FDA will be in charge of enforcement and penalties for violations. On July 7, 2010, the FDA began receiving public comments on how to implement section 4205 of the PPACA. The comment period runs for 60 days and will close on September 5, 2010.

For more information regarding current FDA authority, procedure, or regulations please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

Banco Colpatria, S.A. Settles Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Violations

/0 Comments/in , /by

On August 19, 2010, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, (“OFAC”), of the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that it has reached a settlement with Banco Colpatria, S.A., (“Colpatria”), for alleged violations of OFACs Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations. The alleged violations stem from activities of Colpatrias Miami Agency which discontinued operations in 2007. OFAC is a part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and administers and enforces economic sanctions against targeted foreign countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, among others.

OFAC alleged that Colpatria Miami violated the Narcotics Regulations through a series of wire transfers which occurred between November 22, 2004 and May 24, 2005. OFAC stated that Colpatria Miami made 26 wire transfers on behalf of one corporate client after OFAC had designated the clients beneficial owners are Special Designated Narcotics Traffickers, (“SDN”).

Colpatria initially screened the names of the beneficial owners against the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List when the account was opened; however, it did not screen the names after the list was updated by OFAC.

The penalty for these violations was initially set at $229,623; however, this amount was reduced by OFAC to $91,849. OFAC stated that the settlement amount was reduced because Colpatria voluntarily self reported to OFAC though it did not admit or deny liability, Colpatria revised its software to review automatically the names of beneficial owners of accounts rather than just names of account holders when performing account opening and periodic name checks, and because Colpatria signed a tolling agreement with OFAC.

This case highlights the importance of 2 crucial aspects of international banking. First, this case highlights the importance of monitoring government announcements, such as OFACs SDN list which is regularly updated and publicly available. Additionally, this case highlights the importance of self reporting OFAC violations. Indeed, self reporting can help otherwise compliant banks avoid criminal prosecution and aggravated fines, and can also help banks maintain good working relationships with OFAC and other agencies within the Department of Treasury.

For more information regarding OFAC and the laws governing international banking please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

Barclays Bank PLC Reaches Settlement With US Authorities

/0 Comments/in , /by

On August 18, 2010, the United States Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control announced that it has reached a settlement with Barclays Bank PLC to settle allegations of violations of multiple sanctions programs relating to transactions Barclays conducted with customers from Cuba, Sudan, Burma, and Iran. Barclays Bank is the United Kingdoms second largest bank earning $14.8 billion in net income last year. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) administers and enforces economic sanctions against targeted foreign countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, among others.

On August 16, 2010, a criminal information was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charging Barclays with one count of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) and one count of violating the Trading with the Enemy Act (“TWEA”). It is a crime to willfully violate, or attempt to violate, any regulation issued under IEEPA and TWEA. Barclays has waived indictment and accepted responsibility for the criminal violations.

Barclays has agreed to forfeit $298,000,000 to the Department of Justice and the New York County District Attorneys Office for violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, the Iranian Transactions Regulations, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations promulgated pursuant to IEEPA and TWEA.

According to the complaint, Barclays intentionally engaged in banking practices designed to avoid filters at U.S. Banks created to detect transactions in violation of OFAC regulations. Such practices included not naming or removing the names in payment messages in order to conceal the identity of sanctioned entities, routing payments through internal Barclays accounts to hide connections to sanctioned entities, and using cover payments to hide referencing parties targeted by U.S. sanctions.

Barclays voluntarily self-disclosed the violations under the terms of OFACs Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines. In addition to forfeiting $298 million U.S.D., Barclays has also agreed to enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for the next 2 years. This will require Barclays to improve its U.S. economic sanctions compliance programs as well as require Barclays to conduct annual reviews of its policies and procedures in regards to OFAC compliance. The British Financial Services Authority will assist OFAC in assuring future compliance by Barclays.

For more information regarding OFAC please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

Drug Recalls Increase 309% in 2009

/0 Comments/in , /by

August 19, 2010

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported more than 1,742 prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drug recalls in 2009. That number is a huge increase from the 426 recalls reported in 2008 and the 391 recalls reported in 2007. With the spike in the number of drug product recalls, product and manufacturing quality is being called into question in the media and in the public.

Recalls are actions taken by a drug manufacturer, repackager, or distributor to remove a drug from the market. Recalls may be conducted on a firm’s own initiative, by FDA request, or by FDA order under statutory authority. The FDA publishes information regarding recalls, market withdrawals, and safety alerts here.

The increase in drug recalls has continued into 2010 with 296 recalls reported in the months of January through June. This rapid increase in drug recalls likely prompted two bills that have been introduced this year in Congress that would impose stricter regulations on the drug industry (see here and here). The bills would also give the FDA authority to mandate drug recalls.

Recent recalls of drug products by Tylenol and McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a Johnson & Johnson unit, (see here and here) have brought concerns regarding manufacturing and product quality to the publics attention. The quality of raw materials used in manufacture as well as contamination and faulty labeling and packaging could be to blame for the lack of manufacturing quality. This lapse in quality could be credited to the fierce competition in the drug manufacturing industry. Drugmakers are cutting costs and cutting back on manufacturing investments to stay competitive.

The generic drug market also fuels the competition in the industry. Generic drugs muake up approximately 75% of all prescription drug sales. The rush by generic drug manufacturers to be the first to market a generic version of a drug after the drug loses patent protection can create a deficit in manufacturing quality.

Advantage Dose, a drug repackager, accounted for more than 1,000 of the reported recalls in 2009. Repackagers that relabel drugs into smaller resale units have also drawn attention for increased recalls due to flawed labeling and packaging.

In an industry that is already rife with competition, drugmakers must be conscientious of quality control. In light of the new attention given to manufacturing quality by the public, policy makers and the media, drugmakers, more than ever, must ensure they are producing compliant, quality products.

For information on how Fuerst Ittleman, PL can help your company with issues surrounding drug manufacturing, repackaging, importing, and distribution, contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner sides with a Small Business Against the IRS

/0 Comments/in , /by

Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been on a rampage targeting banks and tax preparers, but a recent 11th Circuit decision might force the IRS to reconsider this strategy.

The IRS sought to shut down a local Miami tax preparation facility, Nations Business Center, owed by Abelardo Ernest Cruz. However, last month Cruz won a huge battle against the IRS setting forth negative precedent for the service and putting a halt to the “business death penalty.”

The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, with retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConner writing for the three-judge panel, upheld a district court order asserting that the IRS was not entitled to shut down Cruzs tax preparation company nor its affiliates, including Nations Tax Services. See opinion. The Justice Department, on behalf of the IRS, sued Cruzs company in the district court seeking a civil injunction to shut it down. However, US District Judge William Zloch denied the motion, finding the company had submitted bad returns for customers, but was mending its ways. Judge Zloch found the “death penalty” would be an extreme remedy and instead barred the company from engaging in deceptive practices and mandated IRS monitoring for compliance.

The 11th Circuit said the IRS launched its investigation of Cruzs company because Cruzs clients were receiving refunds and claiming earned-income tax credits at rates far beyond the national average. The 11th Circuit further stated that an audit revealed “numerous and repeated understatements of tax liability.” Cruz, however, changed preparing procedures and continuing education policies after learning of the IRS investigation, thus leading the 11th Circuit to conclude that the district court had correctly deduced that Cruzs company had significantly reformed its deceptive practices.

Before the 11th Circuit, the government argued that Judge Zloch abused his discretion by failing to enjoin the defendants from acting as tax preparers and failing to require the company to notify customers of the injunction. However, Justice OConner found that “the district court was within its discretion in finding that such a broad injunction was not warranted.” Justice OConner further stated that “[t]here is nothing illogical in finding that education programs could curb negligent misconduct while relying on the added sanctions of the district courts limited injunction to curb any excess of international misconduct.” Former Justice OConner did send one aspect of the case back to Judge Zloch because Judge Zloch gave no reason for rejecting the injunction requested by the IRS compelling Cruz to notify customers of the courts injunction.

Present and Future Regulations

In the past, tax preparers have not only faced civil fines and the business death penalty but criminal prosecution as well. Dan Boone, spokesperson for the IRS civil division, said the service is dedicated to bringing more regulation to the tax preparation industry. Training is currently not required in the State of Florida for one to establish a tax preparation facility. Yet, starting in September, anyone who is paid to prepare federal tax returns must register and receive a tax identification number. Then next year, all tax preparers must pass a competency test.

If you have any questions about the new rules and regulations tax preparers must abide by or if you are a tax preparer under audit, please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.