Is Grocery Chain's FCA Win in the Bag?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.18
On March 22, 2018, an Indiana state trial court dismissed a qui tam action alleging that a large grocery chain knowingly failed to collect and remit state sales tax on hundreds of goods. State of Indiana ex. rel Harmeyer v. The Kroger Co. et al. Under Indiana law, the state’s gross retail tax does not apply to “food and food ingredients,” but it does apply to candy, soft drinks, dietary supplements, and prepared foods. Relator claimed 1,400 food items were mischaracterized as tax-exempt, for example, claiming protein bars are taxable candy rather than nontaxable food.
The judge held that the complaint failed to identify any particular false statement, noting also that the relator, whose similar case against a grocer in another state had been dismissed, was not an employee of the grocery chain, had no inside knowledge of what took place within the company, and merely presumed that the defendant’s characterization of the items as tax-exempt was false and done recklessly. The court could not determine whether the 1,400 items constituted a substantial percentage of the products sold by defendant, and therefore, even if they were mischaracterized, the court could not presume recklessness from that number. Last week, relator filed his appeal.
The dismissal is a blow to serial qui tam relators who, with no inside information, bring claims against companies based solely on a presumption that they must be non-compliant with an industry regulation. The case also reflects an uptick in FCA litigation involving underpayment state taxes (previous post here). While the federal FCA bars tax-related actions (31 USC § 3729(d)), companies must still consider potential exposure in the jurisdictions that permit FCA suits arising from state tax matters.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.26
CAS Board Publishes Final Rule Rescinding CAS 404, 408, 409, and 4117
As part of its ongoing effort to conform the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), the CAS Board published a final rule rescinding CAS 408 (Accounting for costs of compensated personal absence) and CAS 411 (Accounting for acquisition costs of material). The CAS Board also rescinded CAS 404 (Capitalization of tangible assets) and CAS 409 (Depreciation of tangible capital assets) but retained certain requirements of CAS 404 and 409, which will be located in new paragraphs of CAS 405 (Accounting for unallowable costs). Specifically, the CAS Board retained the requirements currently located at CAS 404-50(d)(1), CAS 409-50(e)(5), CAS 409-50(j)(1), and CAS 409-50(j)(4), which the CAS Board explained are necessary to protect the Government’s interests. Otherwise, the CAS Board determined that the requirements of CAS 404, 408, 409, and 411 overlapped with GAAP such that GAAP “may be applied reasonably as a substitute for CAS to support contract cost and pricing.”
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.08.26
Crowell & Moring and Crowell GovCon Strategies at Farnborough International Airshow 2026
Client Alert | 7 min read | 07.08.26
Illinois Imposes Transparency and Safety Obligations on Frontier AI Systems
Client Alert | 10 min read | 07.08.26
Proactive Compliance in Health Care: “Getting Ahead” of Enforcement in 2026 and Beyond

