Flume, Boyd, and Cohen: Three Recent FBAR Cases Yielding Important New Lessons
Many people have grown weary of cases focused on penalties for failing to declare foreign accounts on FinCEN Form 114 (“FBAR”), which is understandable given all the attention heaped on this topic since 2008. However, the reality is that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) continues to aggressively impose severe FBAR penalties, while the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regularly files lawsuits in District Courts to collect them. These governmental actions, coupled with the colorful defenses raised by taxpayers, have created a significant amount of precedent in recent years. Court decisions are inconsistent, the IRS is capricious in following its own published guidance, and the key concept of “willfulness” is constantly evolving. Taxpayers who do not stay abreast of the evolution diminish their chances of success in fending off FBAR penalties.
In an effort to keep taxpayers and their advisors updated,
this article analyzes three recent FBAR cases, Flume, Boyd, and Cohen, which
contribute new material to the dialogue.
About Hale E. Sheppard
HALE E. SHEPPARD, Esq. (B.S., M.A., J.D., LL.M., LL.M.T.) is a Shareholder in the Tax Controversy Section of Chamberlain Hrdlicka and Chair of the International Tax Group.