District Court Holds the FBAR Willful Penalty Requires Opportunity for Pre-Assessment Jury Trial (9/24/25; 6/7/26)

I have updated this blog in paragaph 5 below with an analogous case, HDH Group, involving the § 6700 penalty that has similar features to the FBAR willful penalty involved in the main case discussed, Sagoo. I have also updated this blog in paragraph 6 below to provide a link to a good discussion of these cases. Finally, I updated with paragraph 7 regarding a Fifth Circuit stay of briefing pending FCC v. AT&T, Inc., 608 U. S. ___ (2026) and lifting of the stay.

I have written before on SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), Preliminary Print here, in§ which the Court held that the Constitution’s Seventh Amendment guaranteeing a jury trial in some cases applied to processes where the Government (SEC there) imposed civil fraud-type penalties (there securities fraud). That is a high-level summary of a fairly complex Supreme Court opinion. Thus, for example, the Tax Court recently held that Jarkesy did not require a right to jury trial before the IRS determined a civil fraud penalty in a partnership equivalent of a notice of deficiency, permitting the partnership to contest in the Tax Court where no jury trial is permitted. Silver Moss Properties, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 3 (2025) (Reviewed Opinion) (T.C. Dkt. No. 10646-21, here, at Entry # 109, GS here), discussed in Tax Court Rejects SCE’s Hail Mary Jarkesy Pass (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 8/21/25), here.

In United States v. Sagoo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184336, 2025 WL 2689912 (N.D. Tex 9/23/25), CL here and GS here, the Court dismissed the Government’s FBAR willful penalty collection suit because the Government assessed the FBAR penalty without affording the penalized party (Sagoo) a pre-assessment jury trial on liability. The opinion is relatively short (8 pages) and rather cryptic in its legal analysis (pp. 4-7). So, I will leave it to readers of this blog to read and consider the legal analysis for whatever it is worth.

JAT Comments:

1. I say that the legal analysis is “rather cryptic.” Of course, as the Sagoo Court develops its legal analysis, the law is straightforward and easily applied to the simple relevant facts. If that were true, then calling the legal analysis rather cryptic is not suggesting a criticism. I question, though, where the legal analysis is as straightforward as the Sagoo presents it. For example, in Silver Moss Properties, LLC, discussing the same issue for the civil fraud penalty where the facts are also cryptic (one page), the Court’s legal discussion (pp. 7-16) covers 9 pages. This suggests that the legal analysis may not be as straightforward as the Sagoo Court presents it, even though Silver Moss Properties, LLC involved the civil fraud rather than the FBAR willful penalty involved in Sagoo.

Schwarzbaum Redux – 11th Circuit Issues New Opinion to Correct Statement of FBAR Willfulness Civil Penalty Standard (1/23/25)

 In United States v. Schwarzbaum, ___ F.4th ___ (11th Cir. 1/23/25), CA11 here and GS here, the 11^th Circuit revisited the long-running Schwarzbaum FBAR civil penalty litigation. I discussed the immediately preceding visitation/opinion in 11th Circuit on Third Consideration Seals FBAR Willful Penalty Except for Relatively Small Amount Held Excessive Fine under 8th Amendment (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 9/4/24) here. In this new opinion, issued yesterday, the Court starts:

Appellee’s [United States’] petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. We VACATE our prior opinion in this case and substitute the following in its place:

The Slip Opinion for the prior opinion was 53 pages; the Slip Opinion for this new opinion is 55 pages. For purposes of Federal Tax Crimes and Federal Tax Procedure Blogs, the material changes * only correct misstatements in the original opinion that the FBAR willfulness civil penalty standard is the same as the FBAR willfulness criminal penalty standard (the Cheek/Ratzlaf standard). (See new footnotes on p. 40 n. 7 and p. 46 n. 10.) As all readers of this blog surely know, the civil penalty standard includes recklessness but the criminal penalty standard requires the stricter specific intent requirement in Cheek and Ratzlaf. I don’t think that those corrections affect the bottom-line holdings, so I just copy and paste the succinct summary I provided in the original blog entry.

(1)  (a) held the FBAR civil willful penalties are “fines” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (b) held the minimum $100,000 penalties applying to Schwarzbaum’s accounts with small amounts (those $16,000 or less) are disproportional and excessive; (c) held the penalties on the accounts with significantly larger amounts are not disproportional and thus not excessive; and (d) remanded to the district court to determine the effect of the $300,000 reduction required by the (1)(b) holding.

(2)   (a) rejected Schwarzbaum’s attack that, in a prior appeal, the court held the assessment was “arbitrary and capricious” and thus rendered the assessments invalid from inception; instead holding that the prior holding was that the assessment was “not in accordance with law,” a different standard under APA § 706(2)(A), requiring a remand to the IRS to fix the calculation mistake rather than wipe out the assessments; (b) rejected a related statute of limitations argument that the remand required a new out of time assessment, holding the issue had been decided against Schwarzbaum in an earlier appeal; (c) sustained a lower assessment rather than the correct assessment which would have been higher; and (d) held the district court properly remanded the case to the IRS and retained jurisdiction of the case to consider after the IRS recalculated the penalties.

11th Circuit on Third Consideration Seals FBAR Willful Penalty Except for Relatively Small Amount Held Excessive Fine under 8th Amendment (9/4/24; 1/24/25)

Added 1/24/25 10:00am: The opinion discussed in this blog was vacated by United States v. Schwarzbaum, ___ F.4th ___ (11th Cir.1/23/25), CA11 here and GS here [to come], with a new opinion substituted. I discuss the new opinion in the following blog: [to come]

In United States v. Schwarzbaum, 114 F.4th 1319  (11th Cir. 8/30/24), 11Cir here and GS here, the Court:

(1)  (a) held the FBAR civil willful penalties are “fines” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (b) held the minimum $100,000 penalties applying to Schwarzbaum’s accounts with small amounts (those $16,000 or less) are disproportional and excessive; (c) held the penalties on the accounts with significantly larger amounts are not disproportional and thus not excessive; and (d) remanded to the district court to determine the effect of the $300,000 reduction required by the (1)(b) holding.

(2)   (a) rejected Schwarzbaum’s attack that, in a prior appeal, the court held the assessment was “arbitrary and capricious” and thus rendered the assessments invalid from inception; instead holding that the prior holding was that the assessment was “not in accordance with law,” a different standard under APA § 706(2)(A), requiring a remand to the IRS to fix the calculation mistake rather than wipe out the assessments; (b) rejected a related statute of limitations argument that the remand required a new out of time assessment, holding the issue had been decided against Schwarzbaum in an earlier appeal; (c) sustained a lower assessment rather than the correct assessment which would have been higher; and (d) held the district court properly remanded the case to the IRS and retained jurisdiction of the case to consider after the IRS recalculated the penalties.

The unanimous opinion is quite long (53 pages) and offers a lot of interesting discussion of the history of the FBAR penalties. Those relatively new to the subject, can learn from reading the opinion closely. Those who are veterans to the subject can probably skim through the opinion and understand the holdings.

JAT Comments:

Taxpayer Liable for Willful FBAR Penalties Despite Alleged ADHD, Stress, Depression, and Stage 3 Prostrate Cancer (8/10/24)

 In United States v. Rund (E.D. Va. No. 1:23-cv-00549 Memo Opinion & Order 8/6/24), CL here and GS here, the Court granted the Government summary judgment on Rund’s liability for FBAR willful penalties and ordered judgment for “$2,915,663 as of April 30, 2021, consisting of an assessment against him under 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5), plus pre- and post-judgment interest and penalties accruing on that assessment in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717.”

Significant features of the opinion:

1. Rund “participated in OVDP from 2010 through 2016” and apparently either withdrew or was terminated. (Slip Op. 6.) While in OVDP he apparently did not fully disclose offshore accounts and even failed to file FBARs as due. (Id.) He alleged as a defense “improper termination and/or denial of entry from the OVDP program.” (Slip Op. 7 n6.) There is no further discussion of that adventure, and  Rund apparently failed to address the defense in his motion for summary judgment. (Id.)

2. More significantly, Rund claimed certain personal characteristics that he felt negated willfulness. The Court addressed that claim as follows (Slip Op. 13-14):

Court Affirms FBAR Willful Penalty Despite Apparently Accepting NonFiler's Claim of Innocent Ignorance in the Face of Damning Facts (4/24/24; 4/25/24)

In United States v. Vettel, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___ (D. Neb. 4/11/24), CL here and GS here [to come], the Court held, after bench trial, that David Vettel was liable for the willful FBAR penalty. The Court reasoned that, although the Court apparently accepted Vettel’s testimony that he did not know of any tax liability related to the offshore accounts or of the FBAR filing requirement, he had enough objective indications that he was reckless and, therefore, willful for purposes of the FBAR penalty.

I say that the Court “apparently accepted Vettel’s testimony,” Given that reckless conduct alone would suffice for liability, the Court did not have to accept his testimony of ignorance. Indeed, that is the way the Government couched its post-trial brief. See brief here.

The Government’s recitation (brief pp. 13-34) of the objective indications of at least recklessness are damning indeed and certainly permit an inference that Vettel knew of at least his tax reporting obligation and likely also FBAR reporting obligation and intended to evade them. Thus, the brief says (p. 18) “Vettel admits that it is ‘not logical’ to believe that foreign income he earned is not taxable anywhere.” Further, the brief says (p. 18) in preparing his 2012 return, Vettel’s accountant asked questions about foreign income, causing Vettel to disclose a Turkish account but not the Swiss BSI account, resulting in an incomplete FBAR being filed. Also, David Vettel hid the BSI account from his wife, Crystal. (Opinion pp. 8-9.) There are many more facts at least objectively showing Vettel was willful under the FBAR standard and certainly capable of casting doubt on Vettel's claims of innocent ignorance.

I note that David Vettel, with his wife Crystal Vettel, had a Tax Court case, Docket Number 16988-19 (Dawson here). That case was resolved by stipulated decision on 11/12/20, although Dawson does not have a link to any document (even the stipulated decision that I thought should have a link).

District Court Rejects Transferee's Claim of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction for FBAR Willful Penalty Suit (3/12/24)

In United States v. Wolin (E.D. N.Y. No. 1:17-CV-02927 Dkt 137 Memo & Order 2/26/24), CL here and GS here, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Government’s FBAR willful penalty collection suit for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant Greenberg, a recipient of an alleged fraudulent transfer from the person liable for the FBAR penalty. Greenberg’s motion for summary judgment alleged lack of personal jurisdiction. (The CL Docket Entries are here.)

Essentially, although Greenberg was a resident of Israel, she maintained sufficient contacts with New York to support jurisdiction. The Court summarized those contacts as follows (Slip op. 6-8):

          As noted previously, Defendants Wiesel and Greenberg are both daughters of Ziegel and Defendant Wolin is Ziegel’s granddaughter. (FAC ¶¶ 38-39.) Although Defendant Wiesel still lives in New York (FAC ¶ 6), Plaintiff acknowledges that throughout the relevant time period, Defendant Greenberg has lived in Israel. (FAC ¶ 7.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Greenberg maintains sufficient contacts with the State of New York to be subject to personal jurisdiction. (Id.) Plaintiff first contends that Defendant Greenberg is a U.S. citizen and exercises the many benefits and privileges of U.S. citizenship, including by voting in the last two presidential elections. (Id.) Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Greenberg maintains an active New York voter registration in connection to which she listed a Queens, New York address as her residence. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Greenberg filed federal income tax returns and New York state tax returns for each year during the 2015 — 2019 period. (Id.) Defendant Greenberg is alleged to have made nine visits to the state of New York between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019, some of which lasted several months. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Greenberg is the co-owner of residential real property in Queens, New York, that was previously owned by her deceased father, Ziegel, and in connection to which she commenced and is engaged in two lawsuits in New York state courts in Queens County.n2 (Id.) Defendant Greenberg also commenced four additional lawsuits in New York state court, Kings County, which relate to disputes with Defendant Wiesel regarding real properties and business entities previously owned by Ziegel and Ziegel’s estate generally, in which Defendant Greenberg claims an interest. Defendant Greenberg commenced a Queens County Surrogate Court proceeding relating to Ziegel’s estate wherein Defendant Greenberg moved to compel production of Ziegel’s last will and testament and petitioned for letters testamentary in a probate proceeding involving Ziegel’s estate. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Greenberg is the sole or partial owner of eight personal bank accounts at HSBC in New York and that Greenberg has an ownership interest in at least two New York limited liability companies. (Id.)
   n2 The real property located at 135-41 78th Drive, Flushing, New York 11267 (the "Queens Property") is co-owned by Defendants Greenberg and Wiesel and was originally owned by Ziegel. (ECF No. 131-3, Ptf. Opp. Ex. C, "N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty. 712033-2015 Compl." ¶ 7.) In 2006, Ziegel executed a "Life Estate Deed" designating his daughters, Defendants Greenberg and Wiesel, as the beneficiaries of the ownership interest in the Queens Property, in equal shares. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty. 712033-2015 Compl. ¶ 8.) Upon Ziegel’s death in 2014, the ownership interest in the Queens Property transferred to Defendants Greenberg and Wiesel and has since been the subject of multiple lawsuits, including at least two in Queens County, which were commenced by Greenberg against Wiesel in New York Supreme Court. See e.g., (ECF No. 131-2, Ptf. Opp. Ex. B, "N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty. 705219-2018 Compl."; N.Y. Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty. 712033-2015 Compl.).

The Court examined New York law and Due Process Law to find sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction.  (Slip Op. 19-49.)

Court on Summary Judgment Sustains FBAR Liability and Fraudulent Transfer Liability But Orders Further Briefing on Repatriation to Pay Liabilities (3/11/24)

In United States v. Harrington (D. Colo. No. 1:19-CV-02965 Dkt. #111 Order 2/28/24), here, the Government brought an FBAR willful penalty collection suit against George Harrington, later expanded to include his wife, Monica on fraudulent transfer liability.  The Government sought judgment for the FBAR penalties plus interest and costs (Count One), fraudulent transfer liability against Monica (Count Two), and an order for repatriating sufficient funds necessary to pay the respective liabilities (Count Three).  (The CL docket entries are here.)

Count One (FBAR liability) is fairly straightforward with the Court imposing the civil standard for willfulness approved by other circuits because the 10^th Circuit had not spoken on the issue. See pp. 15-24.)

Count Two (fraudulent transfer liability) is also fairly straightforward, with the Court imposing fraudulent transfer liability upon Monica for having received assets from George under the Federal Debt Collections Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. §3304(b)(1). See pp. 24-30. The FDCP imposes liability for transfers having 11 nonexclusive characteristics called badges of fraud. The Court discusses the presence  or absence of those characteristics and concludes (p. 30):

The Court finds six (out of 11) badges of fraud are present. See Key, 837 F. App’x at 354 (five badges of fraud sufficient to uphold summary judgment for government); Osborne, 807 F. App’x at 524 (six badges of fraud sufficient to affirm summary judgment). As a result, the Court finds a reasonable jury could only determine that George’s transfer of his interest in the ValorLife policies to Monica was a fraudulent transfer under 28 U.S.C. §3304. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The Motion is granted, therefore, as to Count 2.

JAT Comment: I infer that the 11 characteristics permit some weighting rather than just majority controls the decision (I infer this because 5 was sufficient in the cited Osborne precedent.; I have not otherwise researched the issue of weighting).

District Court Holds Indicatively While Case on Appeal That Remand of FBAR Willful Penalty to IRS Did Not Vacate the Timely Assessments (2/27/24)

  In United States v. Kerr (D. AZ Dkt O. 2:19-CV-05432 Order dtd 2/23/24), TN here and CL here, the district court ruled indicatively clarifying the intended effect of the district court termination of the case after remand to the IRS of willful FBAR penalties for certain years. The intended effect was not to vacate those penalties but to provide a procedure to reconsider and modify the amount of the penalties for future district court judgment. In other words, the remand did not require a new assessment of FBAR willful penalties (for which the assessment statute of limitations had run). Rather, any IRS action would adjust the previously timely assessed FBAR penalties. After this indicative ruling, the appeal of the case can proceed in the Ninth Circuit.

Links to items related to this blog are:

• FRCP 62,1, titled Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is Barred by a Pending Appeal, here,
• FRAP 12.1, Remand After an Indicative Ruling by the District Court on a Motion for Relief That Is Barred by a Pending Appeal, here,
• Kerr docket entries for this civil case (FBAR penalty enforcement case): CL, here.
• Ninth Circuit Order staying Ninth Circuit proceedings pending the district court’s indicative ruling, here.

Prior blogs involving Mr. Kerr are (reverse chronological order):

FinCEN Adopts Immediately Effective Final Rule Omitting the Regulations Statement of the 2004 Willful Penalty Prior to the 2004 Statutory Amendment (12/26/21)

Readers may recall that the FBAR willful penalty, as amended in 2004, provides a maximum penalty of the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the amount in the account on the reporting date.  31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(5)(C).  Prior to 2004, the maximum willful penalty was $100,000.  After the 2004 amendment, FinCEN did not amend the regulation, 31 CFR § 1010.820(g), to reflect the change in the statute.  After the amendment, creative lawyers pursued the argument that, by leaving the regulation in tact, FinCEN exercised its discretion under the amended statute to maximize the FBAR willful penalty at $100,000 and thus could not assert a higher penalty under the amended statute.  That argument finally failed.  E.g., Norman v. United States, 942 F.3d 1111, 1117-1118 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

FinCEN has deleted subsection (g), thus eliminating any confusion (real or feigned) about the effect of the statutory amendment.  The Final Rule states that it is immediately effective on the date issued (12/23/21).  See 86 FR 72844, 72844-72845, here.

I have no idea why FinCEN took so long to make that deletion.

JAT Notes:

What is the effect of stating an effective date of 12/23/21?  Why didn’t FinCEN just state that the effective date was the 2004 amendment effective date?  Certainly, the deleted subsection (g) had been effectively deleted by 2004 amendment, as recognized by the court opinions prior to 12/23/21.

While I can't provide a definitive answer as to FinCEN's reasoning, I will step through my analysis.:

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 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.

Eleventh Circuit Holds Clear and Convincing Evidence Required for Section 6701 Penalty; Can Reasoning be Extended to FBAR Willful Penalty? (6/14/14)

In United States v. Carlson, ___ F.3d  ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11001 (11th Cir. 6/13/14), here, the issue was the plaintiff's liability for " aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability in violation of I.R.C. § 6701."  Section 6701 is here.  In relevant part, Section 6701 imposes the penalty upon a person:

(1) who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation or presentation of any portion of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document,
(2) who knows (or has reason to believe) that such portion will be used in connection with any material matter arising under the internal revenue laws, and
(3) who knows that such portion (if so used) would result in an understatement of the liability for tax of another person.

Section 6701 may be viewed as the civil penalty analog to the tax crime of aiding and assisting, Section 7206(2), here.

One issue on the appeal was the appropriate burden of  proof the Government must bear.  Carlson argued that it was by clear and convincing evidence; the Government argued that it was by a preponderance.  The Court held that the standard of proof is by clear and  convincing evidence.  Here is the Court's discussion:

I. The Government must prove violations of I.R.C. § 6701 by clear and convincing evidence. 

At trial, the parties disputed the correct standard of proof. Carlson contends the correct standard should be clear and convincing evidence while the Government contends the correct standard is a preponderance of the evidence. The district court agreed with the Government and instructed the jury that the Government must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that this instruction misstated the law. 

Under the Eleventh Circuit's longstanding precedent, the Government must prove fraud in civil tax cases by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Ballard v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 522 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2008) ("The Commissioner has the burden of proving allegations of fraud by clear and convincing evidence."); Korecky v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 781 F.3d 1566, 1568 (11th Cir. 1986) ("The IRS bears the burden of proving fraud, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence."); Marsellus v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 544 F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence); Webb v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 394 F.2d 366, 378 (5th Cir. 1968) (same); Goldberg v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 239 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 1956) ("The Commissioner has the burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence."); Jemison v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 45 F.2d 4, 5-6 (5th Cir. 1930) ("Fraud is not to be presumed, but must be determined from clear and convincing evidence, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case."). Our sister courts of appeals follow the same rule. See, e.g., Grossman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 182 F.3d 275, 277 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that a finding of fraud must be supported by clear and convincing evidence); Lessmann v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 327 F.2d 990, 993 (8th Cir. 1964) (same); Davis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 184 F.2d 86, 86 (10th Cir. 1950) (same);Rogers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 111 F.2d 987, 989 (6th Cir. 1940) ("Fraud cannot be lightly inferred, but must be established by clear and convincing proof."); Duffin v. Lucas, 55 F.2d 786, 798 (6th Cir. 1932) (same); Griffiths v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 50 F.2d 782, 786 (7th Cir. 1931) ("Fraud is never presumed but must be determined from clear and convincing evidence, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.").