We understand the specialized markets in which you operate and provide tailored solutions to meet your unique business needs.
Our comprehensive suite of business services combines industry expertise, market knowledge and professional insights.
MNP is a leading national accounting, tax and business consulting firm in Canada.
Suite 2000, 330 5th Ave. S.W.
MNP careers are Different by Design. As an entrepreneurial firm, we truly believe there are no limits to where your career can go.
Many of you have read my earlier blogs on Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR), including this one.
There have been two recent developments in the FBAR world: The due dates for 2016 FBARs have changed, and the IRS has had its wrist slapped for the way it fined a taxpayer.
Filing date change
Historically, the FBAR has been due June 30. While taxpayers often think of the FBAR as connected to the tax return, the requirement to file is created by an entirely separate statute - the Bank Secrecy Act. At the beginning, the FBAR was not even intended to be used for tax purposes. So the filing date didn't fit with the regular tax return filing deadlines.
Unsurprisingly, taxpayers often missed the deadline.
A recent law made a number of changes to tax return filing deadlines, and at the same time changed the FBAR deadline to April 15. Also, an extension is available to October 15. These dates match the income tax dates. It is open to the IRS to allow other extensions, so I anticipate that it will parallel the treatment of other filings - an extension that is valid for your 1040 will be valid for the FBAR as well.
I expect these new deadlines will make compliance easier.
The law is a little hard to find, because it is an earmark to a transportation bill [Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015, HR 3236].
I’m not sure why they didn’t make this change effective for the 2015 filing year, but taxpayers need to beware that the due date for this year will be June 30, 2016.
IRS slapped for abusing FBAR filer
A district court has held that the IRS' conduct in assessing penalties for failure to file FBARs was "arbitrary and capricious", in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The court disallowed the interest and late-payment penalties (but not the failure-to-file penalty).
The APA provides procedural guarantees for "information adjudication". It requires that an agency give prompt notice when denying any request, and that the notice include a brief statement of the grounds for such denial.
James Moore maintained a foreign account subject to FBAR requirements. He filed no FBAR until at least 2009. In 2010 he filed late FBARs for 2003-8, as well as a timely-filed form for 2009.
In October of 2011, an IRS agent interviewed Mr. Moore and then prepared a Penalty Summary Memo recommending that the IRS impose a $10,000 penalty for each year from 2005 to 2008. The memo, which provided the agent's reasoning in detail for recommending the penalty, wasn't disclosed to Mr. Moore at that point.
In December of 2011, the IRS sent Mr. Moore a letter proposing a $40,000 penalty. The letter provided virtually no information about the basis for the penalty, demanded that he accept the penalty or request a conference with Appeals by January 28, 2012. However, on January 23, 2012, the IRS assessed a $10,000 penalty against Mr. Moore for 2005 only (effectively abating the later years’ penalties).
Mr. Moore requested an appeal, and his counsel provided detailed arguments in a letter as to why Mr. Moore acted with reasonable cause. The IRS responded in a brief letter upholding the penalties and assessed the $10,000 penalties. Mr. Moore filed suit late in 2013. He argued that the IRS violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, and the APA. He also sought to have the IRS compelled to disclose the memo.
In April 2015, the district court held that Mr. Moore committed non-willful violations of the BSA and was thus subject to civil penalties. It also rejected his reasonable cause, Fifth Amendment and Eighth amendment arguments for relief from that penalty. The court did not accept Mr. Moore’s “reasonable cause” argument, saying it boiled down to merely arguing age and ignorance.
As to Moore's APA argument, the court said the appropriate standard of review was whether the IRS's actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not accordance with the law” under the APA. The court observed that, unlike tax deficiencies, there are “no codified procedures” for the Service to use in assessing FBAR penalties. Thus, the IRS can essentially fashion its own procedures for doing so, subject to constitutional limitations and the APA.
The court then examined the letter sent to Mr. Moore and found that it could not, on the record before it, determine whether the IRS acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or abused its discretion in assessing the penalties. The court then issued an order that gave the IRS time to introduce additional material in support of its determination to show that its decision wasn't arbitrary.
The IRS's conduct was arbitrary and capricious. After reviewing the parties' supplemental briefs in response to its order, the court reached the following conclusions:
[Moore v. U.S., (DC WA 2015) 115 AFTR 2d [2015-591]
Related Topics:U.S. Tax; FBAR; IRS
Suite 2000, 330 5th Ave. S.W.
Find an office near me