small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
  1. Tax Impacts

Blog

Non-Willful, Per-Form Penalties Suffer a Bittner Fate: Supreme Court Resolves FBAR Penalty Dispute

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page
  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

Blog

Non-Willful, Per-Form Penalties Suffer a Bittner Fate: Supreme Court Resolves FBAR Penalty Dispute

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

2 Min Read

Authors

James N. MastracchioSusan Elizabeth SeabrookKarl Kurzatkowski

Related Locations

New York
Washington, DC

Related Topics

Supreme Court
Bank Secrecy Act
report of foreign bank and financial accounts (FBAR)
Eastern District of Texas
Ninth Circuit
Fifth Circuit

Related Capabilities

Tax
Tax Controversy & Criminal Tax

Related Regions

North America

March 2, 2023

The Supreme Court has released its 5–4 decision in Bittner v. United States, No. 21-1195, holding that the Bank Secrecy Act’s penalty for non-willful failure to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) applies on a per-form basis—and not on a per-account basis, as argued by the government. 

The decision released on February 28, 2023, resolves the split existing between the Fifth and Ninth Circuits following the Fifth Circuit’s holding in United States v. Bittner, 19 F.4th 734 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021), which held that penalties for non-willful failures to report foreign bank accounts should apply to each unreported bank account. That decision directly conflicted with the March 2021 decision of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Boyd, 991 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2021), applying non-willful FBAR penalties to each failure to file an annual FBAR. 

Under U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)(A), the Bank Secrecy Act authorizes the imposition of a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for any “violation” of § 5314. Whereas § 5314 addresses FBAR filing requirements and the type of information to be required within filed reports, the definition of “violation” and the basis pursuant to which penalties may be assessed, remained unclear prior to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Bittner case emanated from a Romanian businessman’s failure to report his interests in foreign bank accounts, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas assessed penalties of $50,000 on a per-report basis. The Fifth Circuit, however, concluded that the district court wrongly applied 31 U.S.C. § 5314 and found that a violation is triggered for each failure to report an account—thereby resulting in the steeper penalty of $2.72 million.

The Bittner decision provides resolution to interpretation of statutory language, whereas the alternative interpretation of applying penalties on a per-account basis could result in additional penalties (i.e., millions of dollars, in the case of Bittner). Taxpayers with FBAR filing requirements should consider the significance of Bittner to the potential computation of penalties and the extent to which refund claims may be appropriate.

For more information or to discuss further, please contact the authors or your Winston relationship attorney.

Related Professionals

Related Professionals

James N. Mastracchio

Susan Elizabeth Seabrook

Karl Kurzatkowski

James N. Mastracchio

Susan Elizabeth Seabrook

Karl Kurzatkowski

This entry has been created for information and planning purposes. It is not intended to be, nor should it be substituted for, legal advice, which turns on specific facts.

Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2025. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising