United States v. Isac Schwarzbaum, 114 F.4th 1319

Isac Schwarzbaum, a U.S. citizen with significant foreign bank accounts, failed to report those accounts to the IRS as required by the FBAR statute for the years 2007–2009.
Schwarzbaum claimed he relied on accountants and misunderstood filing requirements; the district court found his failures reckless, satisfying the "willful" standard for enhanced penalties.
The IRS initially improperly calculated penalties using incorrect account balances, resulting in assessments totaling over $35 million, later reduced after mitigation.
The district court recalculated and imposed its own penalty figure; on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found it had erred in not remanding to the IRS for proper calculation.
Upon remand, the IRS recalculated a higher correct penalty, but the government sought enforcement for a lower amount previously sought; Schwarzbaum appealed again, raising constitutional and procedural arguments, notably under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause apply to FBAR penalties?	FBAR penalties are punitive and thus are "fines" subject to constitutional review.	FBAR penalties are remedial in part, not punitive, and thus outside Eighth Amendment scope.	Yes, FBAR penalties are punitive and subject to the Excessive Fines Clause review.
Are certain FBAR penalties excessive as applied to Schwarzbaum?	The assessed multi-million dollar penalties are grossly disproportionate to the offense.	The penalties are proportionate, calculated per statute, and tailored to deter willful violations.	$300,000 in penalties for small accounts was excessive; the remaining penalties were not excessive.
Did the district court err by retaining jurisdiction during remand to the IRS?	Once remanded, the district court's role ends; it lacked jurisdiction.	Retention of jurisdiction is proper to finalize proceedings after agency recalculation.	No, the district court properly retained jurisdiction during remand.
Did recalculation of penalties post-remand violate the statute of limitations?	Recalculated penalties are effectively new assessments, thus time-barred.	The recalculation was a correction, not a new assessment, so still timely.	No, the recalculation was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (Supreme Court precedent on punitive purpose triggering Excessive Fines Clause)
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (Supreme Court decision on proportionality of fines under the Eighth Amendment)
Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court decision on Eighth Amendment's application to governmental penalties)
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause applies to states)
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (Interpretation of willfulness in the context of currency transaction reporting)
Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (Abrogation of prior double jeopardy standards, with distinction from Excessive Fines context)
Yates v. Pinellas Hematology & Oncology, P.A., 21 F.4th 1288 (Eleventh Circuit precedent regarding proportionality and fine structure)
Crystal Ent. & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313 (Standard for reviewing district court factual and legal findings)