Date set for U.S. Supreme Court to hear FBAR arguments in 'per accounts vrs per year' debate
Nov. 2nd has been set as the date when the U.S. Supreme Court will begin to hear arguments in a closely-watched case that's expected to result in clarification, at last, as to how the penalties in so-called "non-willful foreign bank account report (FBAR)" cases should be determined.
As reported, the Supreme Court announced in June that it would hear a case involving a dual Romanian-U.S. citizen named Alexandru Bittner, who has been one of the most visible challengers of the way U.S. taxpayers with overseas accounts that they have been found to have failed to tell the U.S. government about are treated, in cases in which the taxpayer in question either didn't know about the FBAR filing requirements, or otherwise had not sought to "willfully" hide the fact that they held overseas bank or financial accounts.
The Supreme Court had turned down at least one previous appeal involving an FBAR case, in October of 2021.
Many tax industry officials and observers have long argued that only the Supreme Court could finally resolve a long-standing divergence of opinion with respect to how FBAR penalties should be dealt with, on the part of different U.S. circuit courts.
At issue has been whether the United States' notoriously persecutory penalty regime for those found to have "non-willfully" failed to file Foreign Bank Account Reports for one or more years with the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) should be based on the number of accounts they failed to file FBARs for, or on the number of years (as represented by "forms", as in "FBAR forms") they neglected to file.
This difference in interpretations results in staggeringly-different penalty amounts. In Bittner's case, for example, a "per-form/year" ruling would mean a penalty for his failure to report over five years of just US$50,000 – less than a fiftieth of the US$2.72 million that he'd owe if he were held to be liable on the basis of all of the dozens of accounts he had failed to report in each of the five years in question.
Bittner's lawyers filed a writ of certiorari petition with the Supreme Court back in February of this year, arguing that the issue at the heart of a Circuit Court ruling at the end of November (United States v. Bittner, 19 F.4th 734 (5th Cir. 11/30/21) – which had held that the FBAR non-willful US$10,000 penalty should be applied on the more persecutory, per-(bank)-account rather than per-(FBAR)-form basis – was unfair, disproportionate and an example of "agency overreach" on the part of the IRS.
In a brief filed last Thursday (Aug. 18), the lawyers (Clark Hill Plc of San Antonio, Texas, and Haynes and Boone LLP, of Houston, Texas) reiterated their case for the court to correct a "perplexing [ruling] incompatible with ordinary experience and common sense".
"Petitioner had dozens of qualifying foreign accounts, and failed to file five annual reports," they write, in the 45-page brief.
"His conduct was entirely non-willful: He was living overseas and was unaware of the filing requirement; most of the accounts were owned by operating Romanian companies; and he ultimately filed corrected, though untimely, FBARs once properly advised of his duty to do so.
"Because the Fifth Circuit [which had determined that he had committed 272 FBAR violations] has misconstrued the [intentions of the Bank Secrecy] Act and embraced an impluasible result, [its] judgment should be reversed."
Now in their 52nd year
Although many Americans are still unaware of FBARs – in spite of their potentially-ruinous penalties – they actually date back to 1970, when they were created by an early U.S. anti-tax-evasion/money laundering/crime bill known as the Bank Secrecy Act.
It was only after globalization began to become truly global, and concerns about organized, cross-border crime and terrorism also began to mount that the U.S. began ramping up enforcement of the FBAR legislation, beginning in 2001 with the post 9/11 Patriot Act.
The FBAR penalty regime with then further enhanced in 2004, with the introduction of a potential penalty of up to US$10,000 per violation for "non-willful" violators. The willful penalty was also increased at this time from US$100,000 to "the greater of either US$100,000 or 50% of the taxpayer's account in question on the date it was meant to have been reported."
Meanwhile, in spite of inflation, the minimum US$10,000 amount necessary to trigger the need to file an FBAR has been unchanged since 1970. Had it been adjusted for inflation, that minimum today would be more than US$65,400, FBAR experts point out.
As far back as 2014, experts were calling for the FBAR regulations to be revisited. That's when Allison Christians, a law professor, associate dean of rsearch and holder of the H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, wrote a paper that is still referred to by advocates of FBAR revisions, entitled "Paperwork and Punishment: It's Time to Fix FBAR."
Christian's paper may be read and downloaded by clicking here.
- Opinion: Post-Bittner, might taxpayers who paid 'non-willful' FBAR penalties based on the no. of accounts they held... get a refund?
- Richardson, La Torre Jeker podcast: 'The morning after the U.S. Supreme Court FBAR decision in Bittner'
- FBAR experts: SCOTUS Bittner decision could see shift towards more ‘willful’ charges, greater 'rule of lenity' awareness
- In long-awaited landmark FBAR ruling, Supreme Court finds in favor of Bittner, and 'per form/year' accounting of penalties
- U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear FBAR plea of Boston-area gran, 82