991 F.3d 1077
9th Cir.2021Background
- Jane Boyd, U.S. citizen, held 14 UK financial accounts (aggregate > $10,000) and did not timely file the FBAR for 2010 (due June 30, 2011).
- Boyd entered the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program and filed an accurate FBAR in October 2012, then opted out of the program.
- IRS concluded the violations were non-willful, assessed penalties for 13 accounts (one account not separately penalized) totaling $47,279, and sued to collect.
- District court granted summary judgment to the government, treating the late but accurate FBAR as triggering multiple per-account non-willful penalties.
- Ninth Circuit reversed: held that an untimely but accurate FBAR constitutes a single non-willful violation under 31 U.S.C. § 5321 and authorizes only one penalty not to exceed $10,000; remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Boyd) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5321 authorizes multiple non-willful penalties for a single late but accurate FBAR | §5314 and regs impose account-level reporting duties; Congress intended parity with willful/account-based penalties so penalties may be assessed per account | A late but accurate FBAR violates only the filing deadline/regulation, producing one non-willful violation capped at $10,000 | Single non-willful penalty only; max $10,000 |
| Whether the regulations create separate violations per account or a single FBAR filing violation | §1010.350 requires reporting each account; §1010.306 deadline supports per-account violation theory | §1010.350 governs content; §1010.306 imposes a deadline for the FBAR form — an accurate but late FBAR violates only the deadline (one violation) | Court: regulations mean Boyd committed one violation (failure to timely file FBAR) |
| Whether omission of "account" or "balance" language from the non-willful penalty supports per-account penalties | Legislative scheme and reasonable-cause language indicate Congress intended per-account treatment even for non-willful violations | Congress omitted per-account/balance language from non-willful subsection intentionally; inclusion in willful subsection shows contrast | Court applied presumption that Congress intentionally omitted per-account language from non-willful penalty ► supports single-penalty rule |
| Whether tax-penalty provisions should be strictly construed (Bradley) | N/A — govt did not rely on strict-construction rule | Tax penalties must be strictly construed against the government; ambiguity resolves in taxpayer's favor | Court invoked strict-construction rule as independent basis to reject multiple-penalty reading |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (statutory interpretation: plain meaning and context)
- Ron Pair Enters., Inc. v. United States, 489 U.S. 235 (statutory-scheme coherence limits interpretation)
- Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (read statutory words in broader context)
- Cal. Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (penalties attach only upon Secretary's regulations)
- Bradley v. United States, 817 F.2d 1400 (tax penalties strictly construed against government)
- Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (different statutory language in adjacent provisions evidences intent)
- United States v. McDuffy, 890 F.3d 796 (same-menu textual-presumption applied)
- United States v. Bittner, 469 F. Supp. 3d 709 (district-court decision treating late accurate FBAR as single violation)