October 3, 2022

ACN Center

Area Control Network

Justice Department Issues Statement on Ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc, et. al. v. Biden, et. al.

14 min read

The U.S. Department of Justice today released the following statement on Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc., et. al. v. Biden, et. al. from spokesman Anthony Coley:

“The Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) disagree with the district court’s decision and will appeal, subject to CDC’s conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health. The Department continues to believe that the order requiring masking in the transportation corridor is a valid exercise of the authority Congress has given CDC to protect the public health. That is an important authority the Department will continue to work to preserve.

“On April 13, 2022, before the district court’s decision, CDC explained that the order would remain in effect while it assessed current public health conditions, and that the Transportation Security Administration would extend its directive implementing the order until May 3 to facilitate CDC’s assessment.

“If CDC concludes that a mandatory order remains necessary for the public’s health after that assessment, the Department of Justice will appeal the district court’s decision.”

More from: April 19, 2022

  • Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Secretary Campbell 
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Mississippi Podiatrist Charged for Alleged Foot Bath Scheme
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Oxford, Mississippi, returned an indictment on Oct. 27 that was unsealed today, charging a Mississippi podiatrist with a scheme to defraud health care benefit programs, including Medicare, by prescribing and dispensing medically unnecessary medications and ordering medically unnecessary testing, including in exchange for kickbacks and bribes.

    [Read More…]

  • Opportunity Zones: Census Tract Designations, Investment Activities, and IRS Challenges Ensuring Taxpayer Compliance
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The 2017 law commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created a tax incentive that gave governors discretion to nominate generally up to 25 percent of their states’ low-income census tracts as special investment areas called Opportunity Zones. The U.S. Department of the Treasury then verified eligibility and designated the nominated tracts. GAO found that on average, the selected tracts had higher poverty and a greater share of non-White populations than eligible, but not selected, tracts. These differences were statistically significant. Most state government officials were aware of at least some Opportunity Zone investments but had differing views of the tax incentive’s effect so far. State Respondents’ Views on Overall Impact of the Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive Note: GAO surveyed government officials from the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and the five U.S. territories—American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—and received 56 responses. Based on case studies of Qualified Opportunity Funds—investment vehicles organized for investing in Opportunity Zones—the tax incentive attracted investment in a variety of projects, including multifamily housing, self-storage facilities, and renewable energy businesses. According to survey responses and other sources, most projects are real-estate focused. Through 2019, more than 6,000 Qualified Opportunity Funds had invested about $29 billion, based on partial data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). IRS developed plans to ensure Qualified Opportunity Funds and investors are complying with the tax incentive’s requirements; however, IRS faces challenges in implementing these plans. Specifically, the plans depend on data that are not readily available for analysis. In addition, funds have attracted investments from high-wealth individuals, and some funds are organized as partnerships with hundreds of investors. IRS considers both of these groups to be high risk for tax noncompliance generally. However, IRS has not researched potential compliance risks these groups pose for this tax incentive. As a result, IRS may be unable to effectively direct compliance efforts. Why GAO Did This Study Congress created the Opportunity Zones tax incentive to spur investments in distressed communities. Taxpayers who invest in Qualified Opportunity Funds—that then invest in qualified property or businesses—could receive significant tax-related benefits. Funds and their investors generally must invest in Opportunity Zones for a minimum number of years and report information annually to receive tax benefits and avoid penalties. IRS administers and ensures compliance with these rules. GAO was asked to review implementation and use of this tax incentive. This report describes the process for designating census tracts as Opportunity Zones and compares characteristics of designated and non-designated tracts; describes Qualified Opportunity Funds’ experiences with and states’ views on the tax incentive; analyzes available IRS data; and evaluates IRS’s taxpayer compliance plans, among other objectives. GAO analyzed census data on tracts designated and not designated as Opportunity Zones, analyzed data from a non-generalizable sample of 18 Qualified Opportunity Funds, and surveyed state officials. GAO also reviewed IRS documentation, including a compliance plan, and met with Treasury and IRS officials.

    [Read More…]

  • Lithuanian National Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Texan sentenced for attempting to smuggle over 70 people in one trailer
    In Justice News
    A 24-year-old Corpus [Read More…]
  • Department of Justice Issues Statement Announcing Decision to Appeal Terkel v. CDC
    In Crime News
    More from: February 27, [Read More…]
  • 2020 Wiretap Report: Intercepts and Convictions Decrease
    In U.S Courts
    Federal and state courts reported a combined 26 percent decrease in authorized wiretaps in 2020, compared with 2019, according to the Judiciary’s 2020 Wiretap Report. Convictions in cases involving electronic surveillance also decreased.

    [Read More…]

  • The United States and the African Union Commission Sign Memorandum of Cooperation
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Enactment of Legal Peace Legislation to Restore Sudan’s Sovereign Immunities
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • U.S. Government Collects $7 Million in Iranian Assets for Victims of Terrorism Fund
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced the United States has collected $7 million of Iranian funds that will be allocated to provide compensation to American victims of international state-sponsored terrorism.

    [Read More…]

  • Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Future Rulemaking Should Provide Greater Detail on Paperwork Burden and Economic Effects of International Business Provisions
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO’s interviews with officials representing eight selected U.S.-based companies revealed considerable uncertainty in how the international business provisions of Public Law 115-97—commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA)—may be affecting business planning decisions. Some companies reported making specific changes, such as moving intellectual property back to the U.S. in response to a new deduction for income earned from certain foreign-derived sales of property or services attributed to assets located in the U.S. Preliminary studies on another provision taxing net income earned by foreign subsidiaries exceeding a specified threshold of certain assets hypothesized that this provision could encourage moving tangible property outside the U.S. Other business representatives emphasized the importance of nontax factors in business planning decisions, such as entering foreign markets where executives believe potential customers may be located. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed eight regulations and finalized six of them to implement four international provisions of TCJA between December 2017 and October 2020 (the most current information available at the time of GAO’s review) and used guidance to supplement the regulations. The agency generally complied with legal requirements for issuing regulations and offered public comment opportunities for some guidance. However, Treasury and IRS did not fully address expectations set in government-wide guidance related to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) burden estimates, economic analysis requirements for regulations, and public comment on significant guidance: IRS generally did not provide specific estimates of the incremental paperwork burden of TCJA’s international regulations and instead estimated the total burden for all business tax forms. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ PRA guide says agencies should estimate the time and money required for an information collection. GAO’s interviews with representatives of selected companies show why it is important for IRS to consider burden because representatives reported challenges, such as gathering required information from foreign subsidiaries. Anticipated economic benefits and costs of Treasury’s and IRS’s regulations were generally not quantified. An executive order requires agencies to provide such information to the extent feasible for regulations with the largest anticipated economic effects. As a result, Treasury and IRS made important decisions about regulations, such as whether to allow foreign military sales to be eligible for a U.S. deduction, without more specific information about the potential economic effects. IRS did not provide an opportunity for public comment before issuing revenue procedures related to TCJA’s international provisions. The Office of Management and Budget identified ensuring public comment opportunities for significant guidance when appropriate as a leading practice that agencies should follow. The President recently directed a government-wide review of agency guidance processes. Why GAO Did This Study TCJA made sweeping changes to taxing U.S. corporations’ international activities: (1) a transition tax on untaxed overseas earnings of foreign subsidiaries that accrued prior to 2017; (2) a tax on the net income earned by foreign subsidiaries exceeding a specified threshold of certain assets; (3) a deduction for income from certain foreign-derived sales of property or services exceeding a specified threshold of certain assets; and (4) a tax on certain payments made to a related foreign party referred to as base erosion payments. GAO was asked to review IRS’s implementation of TCJA and early effects of the law. This report: (1) describes how TCJA’s international provisions may be affecting U.S.-based corporations’ international business activities; and (2) assesses IRS’s and Treasury’s development of relevant regulations and guidance to implement the provisions. GAO interviewed representatives from eight companies’ tax departments randomly selected from among the 100 largest U.S.-based companies and compared relevant regulations and guidance against procedural requirements.

    [Read More…]

  • Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Commerce Should Improve Its Exclusion Request Process and Economic Impact Reviews
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has a four-phase process to review companies’ requests to be excluded from having to pay Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Commerce ensures an exclusion request is complete, accepts public input, evaluates materials submitted, and issues a final decision. Between March 2018 and November 2019, Commerce received over 106,000 requests; it rejected over 19,000 of them prior to decision due to incorrect or incomplete information. Although rejections may delay relief for requesters and can increase work for Commerce, the agency has not identified, analyzed, or taken steps to fully address the causes of these submission errors. In deciding exclusion requests, Commerce examines objections from steel and aluminum producers to find whether the requested products are reasonably available domestically in a sufficient amount. Commerce may also decide exclusion requests based on national security issues, but has not done so. While Commerce approved two-thirds of exclusion requests, it most often denied requests that had technical errors or where a domestic producer had objected. Commerce did not decide about three quarters of requests within its established timeliness guidelines, as shown in the figure, taking more than a year to decide 841 requests. Commerce took steps to improve timeliness, such as streamlining the review process for some requests and creating a new submission website, but continues not to meet guidelines and had a backlog of 28,000 requests as of November 2019. Until Commerce takes additional steps, companies will continue to encounter delays in obtaining relief. Most Steel and Aluminum Exclusion Decisions Did Not Meet the Department of Commerce’s Established Timeliness Guidelines from March 2018 to November 2019 Commerce has not documented the results from any reviews of the tariffs’ impacts or assigned responsibility for conducting regular reviews. GAO found evidence of changes in U.S. steel and aluminum imports and markets. For example, imports covered by the tariffs declined after an initial surge and prices dropped after significant increases in earlier years. Evaluating whether the tariffs have achieved the intended goals and how they affect downstream sectors requires more in-depth economic analysis. Without assigning responsibility for conducting regular reviews and documenting the results, Commerce may be unable to consistently assess if adjustments to the tariffs are needed. Citing national security concerns over excess global supply of steel and aluminum, in March 2018 the President placed tariffs on the import of some products using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. At the President’s direction, Commerce established a process to provide relief, or exclusion, from the tariffs. GAO was asked to review Commerce’s Section 232 tariff exclusion process. This report assesses (1) the process Commerce uses to decide exclusion requests and to what degree it has accepted submitted requests; (2) what criteria and factors affected Commerce’s decisions; (3) how often Commerce met established guidelines for the timely resolution of requests; and (4) the extent to which Commerce reviewed the impacts of the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, as directed. GAO analyzed Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security and International Trade Administration records from March 2018 to November 2019, as well as data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Homeland Security, and spoke with agency officials. GAO recommends that Commerce (1) identify, analyze, and respond to factors in the process that may cause submission errors; (2) take steps to improve timeliness of exclusion request decisions and address the backlog; and (3) assign responsibility for reviewing the tariffs’ impact and document the results. Commerce concurred with all three recommendations. For more information, contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-8612 or GianopoulosK@gao.gov .

    [Read More…]

  • Nigeria Travel Advisory
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra Before Their Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • U.S. and Ukraine Agree to Establish a Secure Communications Link for Risk Reduction
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Medicare Part B: Payments and Use for Selected New, High-Cost Drugs
    In U.S GAO News
    Hospital outpatient departments perform a wide range of procedures, including diagnostic and surgical procedures, which may use drugs that Medicare considers to function as supplies. If the drug is new, and its cost is high relative to Medicare’s payment for the procedure, then hospitals can receive a separate “pass-through” payment for the drug in addition to Medicare’s payment for the procedure. These pass-through payments are in effect for 2 to 3 years. When the pass-through payments expire, Medicare no longer pays separately for the drug, and payment for the drug is “packaged” with the payment for the related procedure. The payment rate for the procedure does not vary by whether or not the drug is used. Medicare intends this payment rate to be an incentive for hospitals to furnish services efficiently, such as using the most cost-efficient items that meet the patient’s needs. Examples of Types of Drugs that Medicare Considers to Function as Supplies GAO’s analysis of Medicare data showed that higher payments were associated with six of seven selected drugs when they were eligible for pass-through payments versus when their payments were packaged. For example, one drug used in cataract removal procedures was eligible for pass-through payments in 2017. That year, Medicare paid $1,824 for the procedure and $463 for the drug pass-through payment—a total payment of $2,287. If a hospital performed the same cataract removal procedure when the drug was packaged the following year, there was no longer a separate payment for the drug. Instead, Medicare paid $1,921 for the procedure whether or not the hospital used the drug. Of the seven selected drugs, GAO also reviewed differences in use for four of them that did not have limitations on Medicare coverage during the time frame of GAO’s analysis, such as coverage that was limited to certain clinical trials. GAO found that hospitals’ use of three of the four drugs was lower when payments for the drugs were packaged. This was consistent with the financial incentives created by the payment system. In particular, given the lower total payment for the drug and procedure when the drug is packaged, hospitals may have a greater incentive to use a lower-cost alternative for the procedure. Hospitals’ use of a fourth drug increased regardless of payment status. The financial incentives for that drug appeared minimal because the total payment for it and its related procedure was about the same when it was eligible for pass-through payments and when packaged. Other factors that can affect use of the drugs include the use of the drugs for certain populations and whether hospitals put the drugs on their formularies, which guide, in part, whether the drug is used at that hospital. The Department of Health and Human Services reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Medicare makes “pass-through” payments under Medicare Part B when hospital outpatient departments use certain new, high-cost drugs. These temporary payments are in addition to Medicare’s payments for the procedures using the drugs. They may help make the new drugs accessible for beneficiaries and also allow Medicare to collect information on the drugs’ use and costs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 included a provision for GAO to review the effect of Medicare’s policy for packaging high-cost drugs after their pass-through payments have expired. This report describes (1) the payments associated with selected high-cost drugs when eligible for pass-through payments versus when packaged, and (2) hospitals’ use of those drugs when eligible for pass-through payments versus when packaged. GAO reviewed federal regulations on pass-through payments and Medicare payment files for all seven drugs whose pass-through payments expired in 2017 or 2018 and that were subsequently packaged. All of these drugs met Medicare’s definition for having a high cost relative to Medicare’s payment rate for the procedure using the drug. GAO also reviewed Medicare claims data on the use of the drugs for 2017 through 2019 (the most recent available). To supplement this information, GAO also interviewed Medicare officials, as well officials from 11 organizations representing hospitals, physicians, and drug manufacturers, about payment rates, use, reporting, and clinical context for the drugs. For more information, contact James Cosgrove at (202) 512-7114 or cosgrovej@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Joint Statement between the United States and Uzbekistan Following the Inaugural Meeting of the Strategic Partnership Dialogue
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Timor-Leste Travel Advisory
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Files Housing Discrimination Lawsuit Against Staten Island, New York Rental Agent and Real Estate Agency
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against Village Realty of Staten Island Ltd. and Denis Donovan, a sales and former rental agent at Village Realty, alleging discrimination against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act when offering housing units for rent. The lawsuit is based on the results of testing conducted by the department’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices. 

    [Read More…]

  • Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Newton County, Arkansas and its Board of Election Commissioners to Ensure Polling Place Accessibility for Voters with Disabilities
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department yesterday reached a settlement under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with Newton County, Arkansas, and its Board of Election Commissioners to ensure that the County provides an accessible voting program, including accessible polling places, to voters with disabilities.

    [Read More…]

Source: Network News
Area Control Network

Copyright © 2022 ACN
All Rights Reserved © ACN 2020

ACN Privacy Policies
ACN TOS
Area Control Network (ACN)
Area Control Network
Area Control Network Center