Skip to Main Content

Zhanna Ziering Weighs in on Recent FBAR Decisions in Forbes

March 25, 2021, Forbes

United States v. Jane Boyd and Kimble v. United States, decided within two days of each other, delivered very different messages to taxpayers who have foreign financial account reporting obligations. Boyd, decided in the Ninth Circuit, holds that the IRS may impose only one non-willful penalty when a taxpayer files an untimely, but accurate, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR), no matter how many accounts the taxpayer should have originally reported. Kimble, decided in the Federal Circuit, held that taxpayers who sign their tax returns under penalty of perjury “cannot escape the requirements of the law by failing to review their tax returns,” and that the failure to review tax returns, which would have directed the taxpayer to file an FBAR, is enough to show willfulness.

. . .

The Kimble decision holds that signing a tax return that does not disclose a foreign bank account means that a taxpayer is reckless in not filing an FBAR and hence is liable for a willful FBAR penalty. This essentially leaves no room for the non-willful penalty, since an individual who voluntarily files an untimely FBAR, like the taxpayer in Boyd, will very likely have previously signed and filed a tax return that did not disclose her foreign accounts. But the taxpayer in Kimble did more than merely sign the tax returns, carrying out her father's wishes to preserve the secrecy of a foreign bank account and giving instructions to the foreign bank that would ensure that the account was not disclosed to the U.S.  Her affirmative acts to ensure the account's secrecy evidenced that the she knew there was a requirement to disclose a foreign account in the U.S. and she was avoiding that requirement. There was therefore evidence to support a willful penalty without a need for the court's reductive holding based only on her signing a tax return.

Zhanna Ziering, a Member with the law firm of Caplin & Drysdale agrees, noting that the way that courts are currently interpreting the willfulness requirement under the FBAR statute leaves very little room for courts to find non willfulness or reasonable cause, and has resulted in strict liability that was not intended by the statute.

For the full article, please visit Forbes' website.


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)