Skip to content
Tax Law Center Blog

Tax Law Center Blog

  • Tax & Foreign Assets
    • Tax Law Services
    • Foreign Asset Planning
  • About
  • Contact Us
Close Button

Federal District Court Holds that FBAR Penalties in Excess of $100,000 is Unlawful

4 June, 2018 Parag Patel 0 Comments 1 category

Parag P. Patel, Esq.By Parag P. Patel, Esq. | Updated June 4, 2018

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in U.S. v. Colliot, determined that an individual who repeatedly failed to timely file Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly referred to as an FBAR, could not be penalized in excess of the $100,000 regulatory maximum even though the relevant statute allows higher penalties.

The IRS assessed penalties for willful failure to timely file FBARs from 2007 to 2010. The individual had four separate FBAR violations in 2007, and the associated penalties totaled $548,773. In 2008, the individual had an additional four FBAR violations and was assessed penalties of $196,082. The IRS assessed smaller penalties in 2009 and 2010.

The court reviewed the history of the relevant statutory and regulatory guidance. Currently, 31 U.S.C. section 5321(a)(5) provides that the penalty for an individual who willfully fails to file an FBAR is the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the unreported account at the time of the violation. A previous version of 31 U.S.C. section 5321(a)(5) authorized a penalty for an individual’s failure to file an FBAR of $25,000 or the balance of the unreported account up to $100,000. It was under that version of the statute that the Department of Treasury issued the current regulations.

The relevant regulation, now at 31 C.F.R. section 1010.820, provided that the penalty for “any willful violation…[that] the Secretary may assess upon any person [is]…not to exceed the greater of the amount (not to exceed $100,000) equal to the balance of the account at the time of the violation, or $25,000.” The regulation was issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

In 2004, the current version of 31 U.S.C. section 5321(a)(5) was passed by Congress, but the promulgated regulation remained unchanged and continued to cap the civil penalty for failure to file an FBAR to $100,000.

The taxpayer argued, and the court agreed, that the IRS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in assessing penalties in excess of the regulation, while the IRS argued that the regulation was inconsistent with the statutory change that occurred in 2004, thereby invalidating the regulation.

The court determined that the current version of 31 U.S.C. section 5321(a)(5) did not override the regulation and thus the regulation’s cap was still valid. The court reasoned that the penalty statute created a ceiling for a willful violation’s potential penalty, but that Treasury could limit the penalty further. As a result, the court held that the regulation can be applied consistently with the current version of the statute and the statute’s 2004 change did not invalidate the regulation. More importantly, the court stated that to Treasury must use the same notice and comment procedure to eliminate the $100,000 regulatory cap. As a result, the court held the penalty for a willful violation for failure to timely file an FBAR is limited to $100,000 by 31 C.F.R. section 1010.820.

Conclusion and analysis

Notwithstanding the result in this case, the FBAR penalty statute, 31 U.S.C. section 5321(a)(5), remains in effect, and states that the penalty for an individual who willfully fails to file an FBAR is the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the unreported account at the time of the violation. As the court mentions in the text of the case, “the IRS has repeatedly levied penalties for willful FBAR violations in excess of the $100,000,” in accordance to that provision. At least in this instance, the court limited the assessed penalty to the regulatory maximum.

This case is very important for various reasons: Taxpayers who have already paid “willful” FBAR penalties in excess of $100,000 per account have a very strong argument that the excessive amounts should be refunded as they were improperly assessed under the rationale of the Colliot case.  Taxpayers who are currently considering OVDP should take this holding into account in the decision-making process, as the penalties for “willful” failures may not be as onerous as previously thought (however, possible criminal sanctions may outweigh this dollar issue. See OVDP FAQ 6 ).

Finally, unless the IRS appeals and wins the case, it seems to me that until appropriate action is taken to amend the relevant regulations, taxpayers have strong ammunition on their side in negotiation of penalties for “willful” FBAR failures.  Assuming that FinCEN acts quickly to amend the regulations, it is unclear if they can be promulgated with retroactive effect.

With so many assessments in excess of the regulatory maximum, including appellate court decisions upholding penalties well in excess of $100,000, (see U.S. v. Bussell, 120 AFTR 2d 2017-6379), it is unclear whether the Colliot case will have precedential value. However, individuals now have a new arrow in their quiver to try and reduce any assessed penalties for a willful failure to file of an FBAR.

Parag P. Patel, Esq.About the Author

Parag P. Patel, Esq. brings over three decades of experience to individuals and businesses facing complex tax problems. Holding advanced degrees from Georgetown University Law Center (J.D.) and New York University School of Law (LL.M. in Tax Law), the nation’s top tax programs, Mr. Patel delivers sophisticated and creative strategies in complicated federal and state audits, penalty abatements, and foreign asset/income reporting. His practice emphasizes international tax matters, specifically foreign financial account reporting (FBAR), voluntary disclosures, and penalty defense.

Book a Paid Legal Consultation

Related Posts

  • New IRS Guidelines for Willful FBAR violations

    Last week, the Internal Revenue Service released interim guidance (SBSE-04-0515-0025) on foreign bank account report…

  • IRS Announces New Rules for FBAR Penalties

    There are two types of penalties applicable to FinCEN  Form 114 (Report of Foreign Bank…

  • US Court finds non-willful FBAR penalty not limited to $10,000 per year

    Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in U.S.…

Tags: FBARforeign account SDOP SFOP Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures voluntary disclosure
Category: Planning for Tax Minimization

Post navigation

Previous: 2018 ABA COMMENTS ON THE OFFSHORE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE PROGRAM AND THE STREAMLINED PROGRAMS
Next: The TCJA and the Future of American Taxpayers

Related Posts

Is Turbotax Reliance a Valid Defense Against IRS Penalties?

Can a taxpayer’s good-faith reliance on tax preparation software serve…

Read More

Finally: IRS Reminds Those with Foreign Assets of U.S. Tax Obligations

The IRS has finally decided that educating taxpayers and tax…

Read More

IRS Announces Key Milestone in FATCA Implementation; U.S. Begins Reciprocal Automatic Exchange of Tax Information under Intergovernmental Agreements

IR-2015-111, Oct. 2, 2015 WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service…

Read More

Recent Posts

  • The Enforcement Surge: What the DOJ and IRS Campaign Means for Tax Professionals and Their ClientsOctober 17, 2026
  • The High Price of Payroll Tax Non-Compliance: Lessons from United States v. PittsSeptember 15, 2026
  • FBAR Willfulness, Recklessness, and the Excessive Fines Defense: Key Takeaways from United States v. RundSeptember 11, 2026
  • FBAR Enforcement and Penalty Analysis: United States v. NiksichSeptember 5, 2026
  • Billions Offshore, Millions Missed: What TIGTA’s Report Means for FATCA EnforcementSeptember 2, 2026
  • Criminal Tax Enforcement Takes Center Stage: The National Fraud Enforcement Division MemorandumAugust 21, 2026
  • Navigating New Jersey Tobacco and Vapor Excise Tax AuditsAugust 11, 2026
  • Navigating the US Estate Portability Election: Strategic Timing and Compliance Procedures for Form 706July 13, 2026
  • IRS Transitions from First Time Abatement to Automated Penalty Relief: Strategic Impacts for Tax AdvisorsJuly 11, 2026
  • Parag Patel to Present on IRS Foreign Asset Enforcement at the 2026 NATP TaxposiumJuly 9, 2026

Search

Archives

  • October 2026
  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • December 2006
  • July 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • March 2001
  • March 1999
  • February 1998
  • August 1996
  • July 1996

Meta

  • Log in

Categories

  • Estate Planning and Probate
  • Planning for Tax Minimization

Law Firm Attorney WordPress Theme By Themespride