Skip to Main Content

Tax Notes Quotes Zhanna Ziering on Federal Circuit Court's Opinion on the FBAR Penalty Cap

November 11, 2019, Tax Notes

Penalties for willful violations of foreign bank account reporting are not capped by regulation at $100,000, the first appellate court to decide the issue held in what could prove a troubling opinion for taxpayer litigants.

. . .

"'May' . . . merely gives the Secretary discretion as to whether to impose the penalty in any particular case. This language does not mean that the Secretary has the authority to set a penalty cap on all cases that is different than the penalty cap Congress mandated," the court held.

Zhanna A. Ziering of Caplin & Drysdale was puzzled by those sentences of the decision, which she found unclear and possibly in conflict with each other.

“If [the court] is saying you just can’t establish a cap lower, I’ll take that. But if they’re saying Congress told you what the penalty has to be and your only decision is whether to impose it or not, then we can kiss the mitigation guidelines in the [Internal Revenue Manual] goodbye,” Ziering said. “There’s enough ambiguity in [the court’s language] that should the IRS want to take that position, they could at least argue that.”

. . .

Ziering found disconcerting the emphasis the court seemed to place on the return signature.

“We are in danger where [the return signature] . . . is becoming the most governing factor,” Ziering said. “Does this language mean that taxpayers can never rely on the accountant and their work because they are required to go through their return with a fine-tooth comb?”

Ziering was also troubled by the court’s language used to discard Norman’s argument that if recklessness were willful, portions of 31 USC section 5321 on non-willful penalties would be superfluous. The court cites instances of FBAR violations in which a taxpayer did not know about their foreign accounts as examples of why the non-willful conduct statutory language is not rendered superfluous.

“What the court ignores is that non-willful penalties have reasonable cause as a defense . . . and lack of knowledge about the account would certainly be reasonable cause,” Ziering said. “If their example of non-willfulness is not knowing about the existence of the account, that leaves a lot of room for what falls into willfulness.”

Ziering acknowledged, however, that the court also pointed to several other examples of Norman’s conduct that had “the effect of inhibiting disclosure,” including opening a numbered rather than named account, signing a document to prevent UBS from investing in U.S. securities, and having her money withdrawn from the account delivered in cash. Norman also made “many false statements to the IRS” about her knowledge of her account, the court noted.

For the full article, please visit Tax Notes’ website (subscription required).


About Caplin & Drysdale
Celebrating our 55th Anniversary in 2019, Caplin & Drysdale continues to be a leading provider of legal services to corporations, individuals, and nonprofits throughout the United States and around the world. We are also privileged to serve as legal advisors to accounting firms, financial institutions, law firms, and other professional services organizations.

The firm's reputation over the years has earned us the trust and respect of clients, industry peers, and government agencies. Moreover, clients rely on our broad knowledge of the law and our keen insights into their business concerns and personal interests. Our lawyers' strong tactical and problem-solving skills -- combined with substantial experience handling a variety of complex, high stakes, matters in a boutique environment -- make us one the nation's most distinctive law firms.

With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., Caplin & Drysdale's core practice areas include:
For more information, please visit us at
Washington, DC Office:
One Thomas Circle NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
New York, NY Office:
600 Lexington Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022


This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other reader. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising
It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.
©2021 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
All Rights Reserved.

Related Professionals

Related Practice Area(s)