January, 03 2013, 10:55am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Ryan Pierannunzi
Tax and Budget Associate
U.S. PIRG
617-747-4315
rpierannunzi@pirg.org
Report Exposes How Taxpayers Bear Cost of Corporate Settlements
Study Featured in Washington Post Recommends New Policies to Protect Public from Subsidizing Corporate Wrongdoing
WASHINGTON
A report released today spotlights a common practice where corporations that commit wrongdoing and agree to financial settlements with the federal government, go on to claim such settlement payments as tax-deductible business expenses. The new study, released by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), follows a record year of corporate settlements, while many more settlements relating to banking, environmental, and consumer safety issues are expected.
"When corporations treat the financial payments they must make as a result of their wrongdoing as ordinary costs of doing business, they force taxpayers to pick up the tab," said Ryan Pierannunzi, tax and budget associate with U.S. PIRG. "While debate rages over how to address our deficit, we can ill-afford to subsidize the misdeeds of corporations like BP and UBS."
The study, entitled, "Subsidizing Bad Behavior: How Corporate Settlements for Harming the Public Become Lucrative Tax Write Offs, with Recommendations for Reform," shows that federal law is supposed to forbid corporations from deducting the cost of fines and penalties, including when corporations agree to pay these punitive measures as part of a negotiated settlement. However, unless explicitly told otherwise, corporate wrongdoers utilize ambiguities in the tax law to avoid paying a significant portion of such payments.
For instance, the $1.5 billion settlement that UBS agreed to last month could burden taxpayers with up to $245 million in tax subsidies. "That's quite a hidden bank fee," Pierannunzi added.
The report offers several recommendations for the federal government in order to better protect taxpayers from having to pay for portions of corporate settlements. U.S. PIRG suggests that:
- Agencies should be instructed to publicize the expected after-tax amounts of settlements, which would more accurately report the net penalty that will be paid by the corporation. This is a matter of truth in advertising.
- The President should instruct federal regulatory bodies to assume full responsibility for determining the extent to which settlement payments are punitive and therefore nondeductible.
- When companies treat public harm as an acceptable business risk, agencies should forbid tax deductibility of settlement payments.
- Following the recommendations of the past three administrations, Congress should prohibit the tax deduction of punitive settlement payments to private parties.
"The tax treatment of settlements has a very real impact on peoples' lives. Every dollar that doesn't get paid to the Treasury means another dollar in debt, cutbacks, or higher taxes that the rest of us must bear," said Pierannunzi.
The report is available here.
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
LATEST NEWS
'Good News, But It's a Low Bar': Trump Backtracks on Plan to Kill Ocean Monitoring Program
"Trump is backing off from doing something incredibly stupid, so we celebrate."
Jun 18, 2026
The Trump administration on Thursday backed off a widely criticized plan to dismantle a deep-sea monitoring system designed to provide crucial storm forecasting data while also tracking the health of coastal habitats and the impacts of the climate crisis on the world's oceans.
In an announcement posted on its website, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) said it "will not proceed with further removal or descoping of equipment" from the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), less than a month after it revealed plans to remove more than 900 instruments deployed along US coastlines.
NSF also said that it would continue planned maintenance operations on the remaining systems, while also creating plans to redeploy that Endurance Array, which is a set of long-term moorings set up in the Pacific Northwest, after it undergoes equipment servicing.
"NSF remains committed to ocean sciences," the announcement concluded, "to responsible stewardship of its research infrastructure and to supporting the stakeholders that depend on it."
The decision to end OOI drew bipartisan backlash in Congress, as the Republican-controlled US Senate on Wednesday passed a measure to block the administration from further removing ocean monitoring equipment.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who led the Senate effort to block the Trump administration's OOI plans alongside Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), described the removal of ocean monitoring systems as "supreme stupidity" that would destroy "a vital source of climate data."
The timing of NSF’s decision to dismantle the system was particularly controversial given concerns over planetary heating and the growing threat of extreme weather, especially as the return of El Niño this year is expected to unleash larger and more damaging meteorological events in the near future.
In response to Thursday's announcement, the Democratic National Committee’s Environment and Climate Council described the reversal on OOI as a rare sensible decision for a Trump administration that has been overtly hostile to climate science.
"Good news. But it's a low bar," the council wrote in a social media post. "Trump is backing off from doing something incredibly stupid, so we celebrate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Susan Collins Ads Brag About $190 Million for Rural Hospitals. It’s a Band-Aid on the Gaping Wound She Helped Inflict
The Republican senator running for a sixth term has postured as a champion of rural healthcare, but the Medicaid cuts she voted to advance are set to devastate vulnerable communities in Maine and across the US.
Jun 18, 2026
In recent weeks, Mainers have been inundated with ads touting Republican Sen. Susan Collins' role in securing passage of a $50 billion fund aimed at shoring up beleaguered rural healthcare systems across the US—including $190 million earmarked for her state.
But the ads, purchased by Collins' campaign directly and by the dark money group One Nation, neglect to mention a key fact: The Republican budget law that implements the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) also contains the largest cuts to Medicaid in the program's history, rendering the $50 billion fund a mere Band-Aid on a massive wound.
According to one analysis, the GOP law's estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas over the next decade will amount to nearly triple the RHTP's funding. Maine is expected to lose nearly $3 billion in federal Medicaid funds over the next 10 years due to the Republican law—a massive hit that the pro-Collins campaign ads predictably avoid.
Collins, who is running for a sixth term against Democratic nominee Graham Platner, emphasizes that she voted against final passage of the GOP budget legislation, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). But Collins cast a decisive procedural vote that allowed the bill, which also delivered massive tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations, to advance to the Senate floor, where her Republican colleagues did the rest. President Donald Trump signed the bill into law last summer.
"Susan Collins is only bipartisan when it doesn't matter," declares a 30-second ad unveiled Wednesday by the Platner campaign, which highlighted the incumbent senator's vote to advance the OBBBA and pilloried her reputation as a "moderate."
The Republican law's Medicaid cuts, which total nearly $1 trillion, are expected to cost Maine hospitals $66 million per year in revenue and strip health coverage from tens of thousands of residents—projections that Collins' ads omit.
"Maine will be forced to offset budget holes caused by this bill by terminating coverage for families, eliminating essential health services, and cutting provider rates so drastically that doctors and hospitals are forced to close their doors—particularly in rural communities," the advocacy group Families USA warned in an analysis of the Republican budget measure. "Hospitals like Cary Medical Center and Northern Light AR Gould Hospital in Aroostook County, Northern Light Maine Coast Hospital in Hancock County, and Calais Community Hospital in Washington County will be at greater financial risk of closing due to Medicaid cuts in the bill."
"While more funding for rural healthcare is always welcome, political messaging about new funding cannot obscure the reality for states."
Nationwide, the impacts of the Medicaid cuts—which include new work requirements and other bureaucratic barriers—are expected to be devastating for years to come. A tracker maintained by Protect Our Care shows that more than 1,000 hospitals, clinics, wards, and nursing homes are "facing closure or cuts" following OBBBA's passage.
Maine Family Planning, the state's largest network of reproductive health clinics, was forced to end primary care services late last year due to the Republican budget law.
“Behind each pin is a story,” Anne Shoup, senior adviser to Protect Our Care, said Wednesday, referencing the markers on the group's hospital closure tracker. "Whether it’s an expectant mother losing access to prenatal care after the nearest rural hospital was forced to close its maternity ward, or seniors driving hours each way for care that used to be down the road, or people with disabilities facing gaps in caregiving that allow them to stay in their own homes, these pins represent our neighbors, our parents, and our kids. They deserve better than to have their healthcare gutted to write a check to the ultra-wealthy.”
The health policy organization KFF has said it is "highly unlikely that any state will receive more money from the rural health fund than it will lose" from Medicaid cuts and other federal policy changes, calling into question Collins' characterization of the RHTP money as transformative for Maine's rural healthcare system.
"RHTP is like lending someone a bucket to catch rain from a leaking roof," Mark Shaffer, an analyst at the Maine Center for Economic Policy, wrote last month. "It’s too small to hold what’s falling and is taken away before the roof ever gets fixed. The cruel irony is while hospitals scramble to manage the leak, millions of Americans have simply been pushed out of the system entirely and left to fend for themselves. And this was all done to support tax cuts for the wealthy."
A 30-second pro-Collins ad released earlier this year by One Nation—a GOP-aligned dark money group that has already dropped $20 million on ads supporting the Republican incumbent—described the $190 million in RHTP funds awarded to Maine for the first year of the program as quite literally lifesaving.
The problem, as the Maine Beacon pointed out, is that "no funds had actually been distributed at the time Collins’ ad aired in mid-March 2026."
"In fact, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services did not receive full approval for the program’s budget until the end of March, weeks after the ad began running," the Beacon observed. "State officials said during a Rural Health Fund Seminar on March 31 that they are still working to finalize contracts and hire staff, with funds not expected to be distributed until later in 2026."
In a March 27 statement, Collins took credit for preserving the $190 million in federal rural health funding for Maine, claiming it was "at risk" of being rescinded and reallocated by the Trump administration. (In early April, the office of Maine Gov. Janet Mills denied the funding was ever in jeopardy.)
Earlier this week, KFF Health News reported that Maine is one of several states that have been forced to make changes to their plans to spend the rural health funds as the Trump administration exerts "tight control" over the money. One restriction imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—headed by Mehmet Oz—bars states from spending more than 15% of allotted RHTP funds on payments to rural hospitals and other providers for patient care.
Collins' ads celebrating the program as an unequivocal victory for rural healthcare include no mention of the spending limitation—which is not in the language of the GOP budget law—or the Trump administration's vice-like grip on the funds.
"It has frankly been surprising to me as a longtime observer of legislative officials, that the GOP members of Congress who were the cheerleaders of the RHTP as a rural hospital fund have not raised any substantial complaints as the Trump administration created this severe funding limit that impacts struggling rural hospitals in their own districts," Adam Searing, an associate professor at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, wrote in March.
"While more funding for rural healthcare is always welcome," wrote Searing, "political messaging about new funding cannot obscure the reality for states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bonn Conference Confirms Climate Action Impossible Unless Corporate Capture of UN Process Ends
"A climate process that remains vulnerable to obstruction and corporate influence cannot deliver the action this crisis demands," said one group.
Jun 18, 2026
As international climate talks backed by the United Nations wrapped up Thursday in Bonn, Germany, campaigners stressed that policymakers must do more to curb the influence of polluting industries if such negotiations are going to have any hope of helping the world bring the fossil fuel era to an end.
The Bonn climate talks—officially the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Mid-Year Subsidiary Bodies meetings, or SB64—serve as a technical and diplomatic staging ground for the next UN Climate Change Conference, or COP31, which is scheduled to take place in Antalya, Türkiye this November.
With current national climate pledges remaining far from what's needed to limit planetary warming to 1.5°C—the increasingly moribund target at the heart of the Paris Climate Agreement—experts and campaigners are taking aim at the UNFCCC’s reliance on consensus-based decision-making, which allows a handful of fossil fuel-producing nations and the oil, gas, and coal industries to block ambitious climate action and weaken international agreements.
“At the climate talks in Bonn, States failed to make meaningful progress and pushed back on already established agreements, exposing a critical truth: Climate justice should not be vetoed, and reform of the UNFCCC is needed to enable climate action at the speed and scale the crisis demands," Lien Vandamme, senior campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said in a statement Thursday.
The #JuneClimateMeetings further exposed the structural barriers slowing climate action: 🤝#ConsensusKillsAmbition, 🕴️Corporate influence,🪑Barriers to participation. It's high time for States to #FixTheUNFCCC.Read more in our statement: www.ciel.org/news/june-cl...
[image or embed]
— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel.org) June 18, 2026 at 6:27 AM
Vandamme added that "effective multilateralism is the only way out of the climate crisis, and this process does not live up to that expectation."
Rallying under a "Friends of Science" banner, dozens of nations are calling out coordinated attacks by fossil fuel producers and the oil, gas, and coal industries on science that threatens their economic prospects.
“We see coordinated efforts to cast doubt on the best available science driven by a narrow set of interests, not by the needs of our people,” lead Panamanian negotiator Ana Aguilar said during a Wednesday press conference.
“We have seen this playbook before," she added. "Manufacture doubt, delay the response, and let the vulnerable people pay this bill.”
Lead Fijian negotiator Sivendra Michael put it more bluntly, telling reporters, "Anyone that is blocking references to science—they are not our friends."
There has been some progress. As CIEL noted:
It is encouraging that, after more than three decades, the UNFCCC has begun to acknowledge concerns around the corporate capture of the process. The open dialogue on transparency and integrity that happened in Bonn represents an important—but long overdue—step towards addressing the influence of polluting industries in the climate negotiations. This dialogue must be the start toward a meaningful, comprehensive policy to address corporate capture of climate negotiations. A climate process that remains vulnerable to obstruction and corporate influence cannot deliver the action this crisis demands.
Erika Lennon, CIEL's senior attorney, pointed to April's First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, as a hopeful sign. The Santa Marta conference, which was free of major polluters like the United States, China, Russia, and India, took aim at what climate defenders called the “shamefully weak” draft text—called the Multirão Decision—produced at last November’s COP30 in Brazil. The final document removed all mentions of fossil fuels amid pressure from oil and gas-producing nations like the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and the presence of a record number of industry lobbyists.
“The Santa Marta Conference demonstrated that a fossil fuel phaseout is not out of reach," Lennon said Thursday. "But Bonn showed that the institutions meant to deliver that accountability remain constrained by outdated rules and undue influence from polluting interests."
"We need effective multilateralism and an effective climate regime, not one that is incapable of delivering accountability or tackling the root cause of the climate crisis, fossil fuels, at the speed and scale the crisis demands," she added. "As attention turns to COP31, governments must confront the structural barriers that continue to delay meaningful action, from consensus rules that allow a small number of states to block progress, to the absence of robust safeguards against conflicts of interest, or violations of the rights of meaningful participation of representatives from climate-vulnerable communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


