Does Treasury Comply with Administrative Law, Including the APA? I Say Yes. Others Say No. (7/17/21)

In United States v. Kahn, 5 F.4th 167 (2d Cir. 7/13/21), here, the Court held that the FBAR willful penalty in 31 USC § 5321(a)(5), as amended in 2004 to increase the maximum amount of the penalty to 50% in the account(s), is not limited by the FINCen’s failure to update the underlying regulations (adopted in 1987) which, consistent with pre-2004 law, capped the willful penalty at $100,000.  This holding is currently the strong consensus.  I doubt there will be further aberrations on that issue. 

I generally discuss FBAR willful civil penalty issues principally on my Federal Tax Crimes Blog and did so in this case.  See Second Circuit Continues the Strong Consensus Rejecting the Argument that FINCen Regulations Under Pre-2004 Law Limit the Maximum Willful Penalty Prescribed under the 2004 Statutory Amendment (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 7/14/21), here.

I said in the Tax Crimes Blog posting that I might address Judge Menashi’s dissenting opinion which, in my view, is ideologically tinged repeating mantras in legal jargon that serve as proxies against the evils of the administrative state that play so well to the right.  Chevron is a chief bogeyman that Judge Menashi and other judges of similar bent use for the purpose.  Judge Menashi’s Wikipedia entry is here.

Judge Menashi’s analysis, in summary, is that an administrative agency, here FINCen with administration authority delegated to the IRS, should abide by its own regulations regardless of intervening changes in the statute.  Judge Menashi cites a rule called the Accardi principle (sometimes called a doctrine) after United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954).  FINCen is part of Treasury, but a different part than the IRS.  That issue then permits Judge Menashi to launch into administrative law.

What set me off particularly about Judge Menashi’s dissent is that, although not relevant to his analysis, he repeats Professor Hickman’s claims about the IRS not following administrative law, including the APA.   Judge Menashi thus asserts (p. 3) “The Treasury Department has sometimes evaded standard administrative law principles when enforcing the tax laws” citing in footnote 3 Kristin E. Hickman, Administering the Tax System We Have, 63 Duke L.J. 1717, 1718 (2014) (describing “tax departures from general administrative-law norms”).  Readers of this Federal Tax Procedure blog will recognize that type of claim by Professor Hickman.  The Court of Appeals in CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, 925 F.3d 247. 258 (6th Cir. 2019), reh. en banc den. 936 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2019), rev’d and remanded 583 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1582 (2021) quoted Professor Hickman and a colleague as claiming that Treasury and the IRS “do not have a great history of complying with APA procedures, having claimed for several decades that their rules and regulations are exempt from those requirements.”  The quote is from Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kerska, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act, 103 Va. L. Rev. 1683, 1686 (2017)).  Fortunately, in the Supreme Court in CIC Servs. the parties submitting briefs (including Professor Hickman as amicus curiae) did not repeat that claim, and the Supreme Court did not make the claim.  Perhaps they steered away from the claim prominently made by the Court of Appeals because the claim is irrelevant to the issue presented (just as it was in the Court of Appeals) and, in my view, the claim is not true.  (I synthesize my conclusions on this at the end of this blog.)  And the claim is not relevant to the issue resolved in Kahn, but despite the claim's irrelevance, Judge Menashi makes the claim.

District Court Sustains FBAR Willful Penalty But Rejects Fraudulent Failure to File Penalty for Income Tax (9/1/20)

 In United States v. DeMauro (D. N.H. Dkt. 17-cv-640-JL Order and Verdict After Bench Trial dtd. 8/28/20), CL here, the Court sustained the FBAR willful penalty but rejected the fraudulent failure to file penalty.  In both cases, in broad strokes the conduct penalized is the same.  If that statement is correct, the difference in outcome is based on the differing burdens of persuasion.  The Government must prove application of the FBAR willful penalty by a preponderance of the evidence; the Government must application of the fraudulent failure to file penalty by clear and convincing evidence.

The willful FBAR penalty requires that the conduct penalized (failure to report) be willful.  In the FBAR civil penalty context, the Courts have held willfulness is (i) specific knowing failure to file (more or less the Cheek standard) or (ii) willful blindness or reckless disregard of the obligation to report.

The fraudulent failure to file penalty, like the civil fraud penalty for filed returns companion in § 6663, requires fraud.  The following is from my Federal Tax Procedure Book in discussing civil fraud under § 6663, but the same applies for the fraudulent failure to file:

The Code does not define fraud, but it may be viewed as the civil counterpart of criminal tax evasion in § 7201. n1 Examples of how courts have stated civil fraud under § 6663 are:  (i)  civil fraud requires “intentional commission of an act or acts for the specific purpose of evading tax believed to be due and owing”; n2 and (ii) civil fraud requires that “the taxpayer have intended to evade taxes known to be due and owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead or otherwise prevent the collection of taxes and that is an underpayment.”n3  In making the determination, as with criminal cases, courts will often look to certain common patterns indicating fraud–referred to as badges of fraud, such as unreported income, failure to keep adequate books, dealing in cash, etc.n4  The key differences between the two is that § 6663 is a civil penalty and has a lower burden of proof (clear and convincing rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) as I note later.
   n1 Anderson v. Commissioner, 698 F.3d 160, 164 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 2797, 133 S. Ct. 2797 (2013) (“the elements of evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 6663 are identical.”).
   n2 Erikson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-194.
   n3 Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-49; Zell v. Commissioner, 763 F. 2d 1139, 1142-1143 (3rd Cir. 1985) (“Fraud means "actual, intentional wrongdoing, and the intent required is the specific purpose to evade a tax believed to be owing.”); and Fiore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-21 (“Fraud is the ‘willful attempt to evade tax’” and using the criminal law concept of willful blindness to find the presence of civil fraud; note that, in the criminal law, the concept of willful blindness goes by several names.)
   n4 E.g., Kosinski v. Commissioner, 541 F.3d 671, 679-80 (6th Cir. 2008).  For use of a negative inference from assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in concluding that the IRS had met its burden of proving civil fraud by clear and convincing evidence, see Loren-Maltese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-214.

District Court Holds FBAR Nonwillful Penalty Is Per Form Rather than Per Account (7/1/20)

In United States v. Bittner (E.D. Tex. Dkt.4:19-cv-415 Dkt Entry 75 Order Dtd 6/29/20), CL Order here & CL Docket Entries here, the Court held that the nonwillful FBAR penalty was per form and not per account.  The holding is the first to so hold and rejects the holding in United States v. Boyd, 2019 WL 1976472 (C.D. Cal. 2019), CL Order here and CL Docket Entries here  I previously wrote on Boyd:  Two Cases Sustaining FBAR NonWillful Penalties on Per Unreported Account Basis (4/26/19), here.  As the Bittner court noted (Slip Op. 21 n. 8), the Boyd case is presently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit and oral argument is scheduled for September 1, 2020.

The Bittner result was significant, for it reduced the number of $10,000 per violation from 177 as asserted by the Government amounting to $1,770,000 to 4 as asserted by Bittner and held by the court, for an amount of $40,000.

The Bittner court also held that there was no material fact issue on summary judgment, so Bittner had not established reasonable cause that might have exempted him from some or all of the FBAR nonwillful penalties.

Readers of this blog can read the Bittner and Boyd opinions and make their own minds up.  I will say that, for a long time, I just assumed without detailed analysis that the nonwillful FBAR penalty was per form.  The conduct being penalized is the failure to file the form, regardless of the number of accounts.  Still, there are countervailing arguments.  They are presented in the Bittner and Boyd Orders, linked above.

I do call to readers attention the following from the opinion (Slip Op. 14):

District Court Muddles an FBAR Willful Penalty Case (3/22/20; 3/24/20)

I made a key revision on 3/24/20 at 4:00pm as indicated in red below to state with cites to the statute that the willful FBAR willful penalty limits (greater of $100,000 or 50% of unreported accounts) is a maximum penalty, thus giving the IRS authority to assert lesser FBAR penalty amounts than those maximums.  That reading of the willful penalty was implicit in the  rest of the discussion; I just thought it should be made explicit.  The changed language is marked in red below.

In United States v. Schwarzbaum (S.D. Fla. Dkt. 18-cv-81147, Order dated 3/20/20), here, in an FBAR collection suit, the court:

1. Held that Schwarzbaum was not liable for the FBAR willful penalty for 2006 but held open the possibility that the nonwillful penalty might apply. 

2. Held that Schwarzbaum was liable for the FBAR willful penalty for 2007, 2008 and 2009, but held that the IRS’s method of determining the penalty was arbitrary and capricious because it was not based on the June 30 values in the unreported offshore account, but the Court held that the parties were to confer to “in an effort to resolve the outstanding amount owed.”

The CourtListener docket for the case is here.

JAT Comments:

1.  I will not review the facts leading to the holding but will instead only deal with the legal issues in the opinion that I think are worthy of comment.