FBAR Penalties Go to the Supreme Court: Dueling Statutory Interpretations
The Supreme Court agreed to resolve a split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits over the correct interpretation of 31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(5)(A), which caps the civil penalty applicable to non-willful FBAR violations at $10,000.
July 20, 2022 at 12:00 PM
9 minute read
For more than a decade, the government has pursued taxpayers who failed to report offshore accounts on Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs). Practitioners representing clients caught in the government's crosshairs have raised a number of legal issues including whether the Required Records Doctrine precludes taxpayers from resisting subpoenas based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (see Jeremy H. Temkin, Second Circuit Tackles Required Records Exception, N.Y.L.J. (Jan, 15, 2014)); the burden of proof and scienter standard to be applied when the Internal Revenue Service assesses civil willfulness penalties (see Jeremy H. Temkin, Civil FBAR Penalty Litigation: No Reprieve for Taxpayers, N.Y.L.J. (March 18, 2021)); and, most recently, the maximum penalty applicable when a taxpayer's FBAR violation was not willful (see Jeremy H. Temkin, Non-Willful FBAR Penalties: A (Temporary) Reprieve for Taxpayers?, N.Y.L.J. (May 19, 2021)). While the first issue raised significant constitutional questions and the second subjected taxpayers to potentially draconian financial penalties, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on either point. See, e.g., In re Special Feb. 2011-1 Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Sept. 12, 2011, 691 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding Required Records Doctrine precludes Fifth Amendment privilege), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 2338 (2013); U.S. v. Rum, 995 F.3d 882 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding "willfulness" for FBAR civil penalties includes reckless disregard of a known or obvious risk), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 591 (2021).
Last month, however, the court agreed to resolve a split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits over the correct interpretation of 31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(5)(A), which caps the civil penalty applicable to non-willful FBAR violations at $10,000. Specifically, the court granted a writ of certiorari in Bittner v. United States to consider whether the $10,000 cap on penalties for non-willful violations applies on a "per-account" basis (as the Fifth Circuit held in U.S. v. Bittner, 19 F.4th 734 (5th Cir. 2021)), or whether the penalty is capped at $10,000 for each year, regardless of the number of accounts involved (as the Ninth Circuit previously held in U.S. v. Boyd, 991 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2021)).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTortious Interference With a Contract; Retaliatory Eviction Defense; Illegal Lockout: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250