Prohibitions on backdating medical agreements
Most managers also know that choosing transfer prices in a way that both minimizes a firm’s tax liability and receives the approval of tax authorities is among the most important tax issues that their firms face.
While transfer pricing regulations (e.g., §1.482 of the U. Treasury regulations) try to restrict firms’ choices by requiring that the prices charged for the transfers of internal products or services occur at “arm’s length” or market prices, firms often have discretion in selecting transfer prices because these internally transferred products or services have no identical external, or market, counterparts.
The ACR has routinely warned that many of the schemes to end-run the “Stark” self-referral restrictions and federal and state anti-kickback prohibitions may put the participants at risk for both civil and criminal penalties.
Leasing arrangements between radiologists and other physicians and entities involve complex financial and clinical relationships.
The legislation would have required imaging centers or radiology offices, rather than referring physicians, to bill insurers without paying any fee to the referrers.
If more lawmakers support such restrictions, a similar bill may resurface in 2007.
Option backdating scandals: how management accountants can help: backdating of employee stock options can have a significant negative effect on a public company.
(formerly the Trade Practices Act 1974) establishes a legal regime to facilitate third party access to certain services provided by means of significant infrastructure facilities. The purpose of these guidelines is to explain how the ACCC might apply the provisions on deferral of arbitrations and backdating of final determinations when making decisions under Part IIIA.
Typical examples of such intangible assets include a company’s specialized methods of production, the licensing rights for producing products, and marketing techniques.
Some of these prohibitions, however, reach far broader than necessary to deter this behavior and instead prohibit appropriate business relationships with entities that are not healthcare providers, such as billing agencies or management companies.
Although there are understandable concerns regarding overbilling or overutilization of care, fee splitting prohibitions that broadly prohibit legitimate, nonfraudulent relationships are not the appropriate tool for addressing these issues.
Florida recently enacted a law that cracks down on physicians who serve as medical directors at investor-owned imaging clinics.
In 2005, Louisiana’s state medical board published an opinion stating that any physician who entered into lease arrangements would violate Louisiana law because he would be accepting an illegal kickback for referring a patient to a center and splitting the fees.