Corporate Law Medical corporation gives half stocks away

[curious1958]

Dear Sir/Maam,
What are the consequences of a doctor giving 50% of his corporate stock away to another phisician and yet never notifies the state of this and files the Professional association tax return both federal and state taxes and claims that he is the sole owner? Is there any tax liability ramification for the new partner not claiming this? Is there any legal ramifications for these two doctors not disclosing this fact? It was stated in depostions and in a court proceeding that the doctor that was the original sole owner had given 50% of the stocks to the other doctor yet on the income tax papers filed for that year the doctor still filed as if he was the sole owner and the state had not been notified of any change in this corporate entity.
Also my second question relates to the other doctor who received the 50% interest in the corporation...did this doctor also have filing requirements with the state and did this doctor have to disclose this newly acquired asset as income to the state and federal government?
My last question is what if this all was not true and both doctors lied about the transfer of the 50% interest in this NJ Professional corporation in order to conceal assets in a matter before the court during this same time frame. This could have been done so that it would appear to others in a NJ legal case before the court that the assests were no longer all the one doctors but rather had been transferred over to this other doctor...thus making it appear as if the doctor involved in the legal court case before the court that the assets were reduced because half of the corporate assets were supposedly given to the other doctor....thus lowering the possible exposure of assets? Thanks for you help in this matter...respectfully submitted from Curious1958 :no:

 

[dee_dub]

The last question sort of renders the first two questions moot, doesn't it? If no transfer occurred, then nothing triggered whatever reporting requirements might arise in the event of a transfer. (Not that I have any idea what those requirements might be.)

If no transfer occurred, and you can prove this, then the consequence is the full measure of corporate assets will be available to a judgment creditor.

Conceivably, if the deceptive non-transfer was done to discourage a lawsuit, and you have now found out that a lawsuit against the dastardly doctors is feasible after all, you could bring an application to revive the suit or some such remedy. What is available all depends on the law in your jurisdiction.

 

[curious1958]

Hmmm good point but I guess you missed yet a few other questions that you have yet to touch upon...and that being what happens to the two doctors for lying to the court? Are there any consequences for their false testimony? Secondly the State of New Jersey has rules against doctors having verbal agreements of exchanging 50% ownership and so does CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, so once again what would the consequences be as to the ramifications for these two doctors?

 

[dee_dub]

Lying to the court is perjury. The penalty varies by jurisdiction. As far as the non-agreement, consider making a complaint to their licensing board or to the governing body that oversees that state requirement. If what they're doing isn't illegal it may be in violation of their code of conduct.

 

[curious1958]

Ah I thank you for your advice, but in this day and age everyone seems to want to turn a blind eye to any and all infractions. That agency said they would leave it up to the courts and the court does not want to take judicial notice. Funny how that one works. Perjury, Ah yes I though that is what they called it. Once again it appears the court has turned a blind eye to doctors lying in the court. I guess it is as the old joke goes...a person walks into a court room looking for justice the problem is it is JUST US!

 

[dee_dub]

The only infraction you have is the doctor's misrepresentation to the court about the transaction. That's perjury.

The doctor's governing body isn't turning a blind eye since, as you say, the transaction never actually occurred. No transaction = nothing to file = no violation of whatever filing requirements exist = no infraction for the body to deal with.

The court is not going to discipline the doctors for the (non)-transaction because it's not within the court's jurisdiction. The court, I like to think, would be very interested to know that the doctors had perjured themselves.