United States v. Ott, 441 F.Supp.3d 521

Defendant Dennis R. Ott, a U.S. citizen, maintained Canadian brokerage and bank accounts from the 1990s through 2010 with aggregate peak balances in 2007 and 2009 exceeding $1.7 million and in 2008 at least $770,000.
Ott listed his sister’s Canadian address as the mailing address for the accounts; most account mail was sent there and not forwarded to Ott.
Ott signed federal income tax returns for 2007–2009 that did not report income from the Canadian accounts; he did not file FBARs for those years (timely FBAR filed for 2010).
Ott did not inform his long‑time CPA of the foreign accounts during the years at issue; he monitored accounts online and communicated frequently with his broker.
After liquidating the accounts in 2010, Ott entered the IRS OVDI process, later opted out, amended returns, paid additional tax and Tax Court penalties, and ultimately faced an IRS assessment of $988,245 in FBAR penalties for willful failures to file for 2007–2009.
Following a bench trial, the court found Ott acted recklessly/willfully (including concealment by using his sister’s address) and entered judgment for the United States for $988,245.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ott willfully failed to file FBARs for 2007–2009	Ott acted willfully (objective recklessness/willful blindness) and is liable under 31 U.S.C. § 5321	Failure was negligent; at most careless reliance on past advice and accountant	Court: Willful—preponderance shows objective recklessness and concealment
Does signing tax returns create constructive knowledge of FBAR duty	Signature imputes constructive knowledge of Schedule B/FBAR referral and supports willfulness inference	Signature alone insufficient to show subjective willfulness	Court: Signature gives constructive knowledge and supports civil willfulness (recklessness)
Does using sister’s Canadian address constitute concealment	Listing foreign address and diverting mail concealed account ownership and reporting cues	Ott denied involvement or said broker changed address; claimed lack of sophistication	Court: Address use was an act of concealment, supporting willfulness
Does reliance on long‑ago advice / failure to consult CPA avoid willfulness	Reliance without inquiry is reckless; failure to disclose large foreign assets to CPA is conscious avoidance	Ott lacked tax expertise and relied on earlier advice — at most negligent	Court: Reliance without verification and failure to inform CPA was reckless and supports willfulness

Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (civil "willfulness" includes reckless conduct — objective standard)
Bedrosian v. United States, 912 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2018) (describes recklessness standard for FBAR willfulness)
United States v. Sturman, 951 F.2d 1466 (6th Cir. 1991) (willfulness may be inferred from concealment and surrounding facts)
United States v. McBride, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Utah 2012) (failure to read or investigate returns can support recklessness inference)
United States v. Mohney, 949 F.2d 1397 (6th Cir. 1991) (signature on return is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its contents)
Greer v. Comm'r, 595 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2010) (taxpayer charged with constructive knowledge of return contents when signing)
Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011) (discusses willful blindness doctrine)
United States v. Horowitz, 361 F. Supp. 3d 511 (D. Md. 2019) (FBAR willfulness analysis; objective recklessness and concealment factors)