Bittner v. United States
598 U.S. 85
SCOTUS2023Background
- The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requires U.S. persons with certain foreign financial accounts (aggregate > $10,000) to file an annual FBAR; a nonwillful violation is subject to a civil penalty capped at $10,000.
- Alexandru Bittner filed late FBARs for 2007–2011; initial filings omitted many accounts, then he filed corrected FBARs listing 61, 51, 53, 53, and 54 accounts (272 total).
- The government did not allege willfulness and accepted the accuracy of corrected filings but assessed $10,000 for each unreported account (total $2.72 million).
- The district court sided with Bittner; the Fifth Circuit upheld the government; the Ninth Circuit earlier reached the opposite rule in United States v. Boyd.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the $10,000 maximum for nonwillful violations applies per report (per-FBAR) or per account.
- Holding: The Court (majority) held nonwillful penalties accrue per deficient report, not per account, based on textual reading of §§5314 and 5321, statutory structure, regulatory context, drafting history, and the rule of lenity; Justice Barrett dissented, arguing the statute and regulations support a per-account reading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bittner) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of nonwillful penalty: per-report or per-account? | Nonwillful $10,000 cap applies once per deficient report (per-FBAR). | $10,000 may be imposed for each account not timely/accurately reported (per-account multiplication). | Per-report: nonwillful penalties accrue on a per-report basis. |
| Text of §§5314/5321: what is the unit of "violation"? | §5314 creates a duty to file reports; §5321 authorizes penalties for "any violation"—so violations count by report. | The statutory duty to report relations/accounts and account-specific penalty language elsewhere implies account-level violations. | Majority: text treats violation as failure to file a compliant report (per-report). Dissent: text and parallel provisions support per-account violations. |
| Use of in-text account-specific provisions and expressio unius | Absence of account language in the nonwillful provision means Congress did not intend per-account penalties. | Presence of account-specific language in related provisions supports per-account application here. | Majority applies expressio unius: when Congress used account language elsewhere, its omission here is meaningful. |
| Context, agency guidance, and lenity | Agency guidance historically described one $10,000 penalty for failure to file; rules/regulations (e.g., reporting exceptions for 25+ accounts) and lenity counsel restraint. | Agency now interprets statute to allow per-account penalties; Secretary has discretion in reporting scheme. | Court: guidance and regulations cut against per-account rule; rule of lenity favors per-report reading given ambiguity and criminal parallels. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (agency interpretations may be persuasive based on consistency and reasonableness)
- Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (2015) (different statutory language in neighboring provisions presumptively conveys different meanings)
- Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959) (penal statutes are construed strictly against the government)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (lenity applies where a statute has both criminal and noncriminal applications)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (identical words in different parts of a statute are generally given the same meaning)
- McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931) (fair-notice principle for criminal penalties)
- FCC v. American Broadcasting Co., 347 U.S. 284 (1954) (penal provisions must be clearly imposed)
- United States v. Boyd, 991 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2021) (held a single nonwillful FBAR penalty per late but accurate FBAR, regardless of number of accounts)