FBAR Deadline Approaches - Risks Increase


AS the June 30 deadline for filing a Report of Foreign Bank Account (FBAR) approaches the risks of non-compliance increase. A recent Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates the problem. The case, M.H. v. U.S arises from the use of a Grand Jury Subpoena to compel the taxpayer to produce records of foreign bank accounts. The taxpayer refused to produce the records citing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as the grounds. The District Court in California found the taxpayer in contempt for failing to comply with the court order. The order was based upon the finding that the Required Records Act applied and that the taxpayer should have maintained records for five years of foreign accounts. The contempt citation was appealed to the 9th Circuit which sustained the order of the the District Court. Other courts in the U.S. have held differently therefore, the matter could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are currently over 4,400 active investigations of taxpayers for failing to comply with FBAR filing requirements. The FBAR statute makes it a felony not to timely file an FBAR and the statute also requires maintenance of specified account records.

The fact that there are 4,400 investigations may or may not be incentive to non-filing taxpayers, but that fact coupled with the disclosure agreements between the IRS and foreign financial institutions. Some of these agreements are in effect now, as part of settlements with the Justice Department, but under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, (FATCA) virtually all foreign financial institutions will enter into such agreements. Many of such institutions are requiring certificates of compliance or closure of accounts held by U.S. taxpayers.

The IRS has made various statements about the effect of coming forward now and filing late FBAR’s under the OVDI, most of which encourage participation. Some recent statements indicate some potential use of “penalty warning letters” instead of FBAR penalties. What is clear however, is that the view of non-complaint taxpayers may face a dramatic shift to harsh, “willfulness” penalties for those taxpayers who do not come forward before discovery and that the use of Grand Jury subpoenas of both taxpayers and their advisers is not a theoretical risk, but a reality.


Written by:

Published In:


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sanford Millar, Law Offices of Sanford I. Millar | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.