Skip to Main Content

Law360 Quotes Scott Michel: ‘Willfulness' in Civil FBAR Cases Comes Down to the Facts

November 21, 2017, Law360

A judge’s recent decision to let a pharmaceutical CEO escape civil penalties for failing to report his Swiss bank account doesn’t necessarily signal that courts could be a reliable counterweight against the IRS’ dwindling sympathy, tax specialists say, but instead highlights the fact-dependent approach for determining willful nondisclosure.

. . .

In fact, courts have weakened the willfulness standard on the civil side compared to the criminal side, Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. member Scott D. Michel told Law360. He said that courts have done this in part by concluding that recklessness can constitute willfulness, which is not generally seen in criminal cases.

“The second way the standard has been somewhat watered down in civil cases is the burden of proof,” Michel said. “In civil cases, as courts have interpreted it most recently, the government has to prove willfulness by 'a preponderance of evidence,' which is less than the ‘clear and convincing’ standard you see in civil tax fraud cases, and certainly less than the criminal burden of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

. . .

“What was interesting in Bedrosian, and in the court’s very explanation in this, was the reference to two previous cases that had willful FBAR penalties,” Michel said. “Those cases had very extreme sets of facts and they favored the government.”

But in the Bedrosian opinion, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson looked at those two cases and concluded that the instant action “doesn’t seem as bad,” Michel said, which suggests that those cases appeared to inform the court’s conclusion that the government had not carried its burden of proof.

"The government often chooses cases with egregious facts to begin to establish precedent for penalties,” Michel said. “The court’s analysis here, to some extent, kind of turned that enforcement strategy on its head. It said, 'OK, looking at these two cases — I don’t think it’s as bad as those, so we’re going to rule for the taxpayer.'"

To view the full article, please visit Law360’s website (subscription required).

Excerpt taken from the article “'Willfulness' In Civil FBAR Cases Comes Down To The Facts” by Natalie Olivo for Law360.


About Caplin & Drysdale
Celebrating our 55th Anniversary in 2019, Caplin & Drysdale continues to be a leading provider of legal services to corporations, individuals, and nonprofits throughout the United States and around the world. We are also privileged to serve as legal advisors to accounting firms, financial institutions, law firms, and other professional services organizations.

The firm's reputation over the years has earned us the trust and respect of clients, industry peers, and government agencies. Moreover, clients rely on our broad knowledge of the law and our keen insights into their business concerns and personal interests. Our lawyers' strong tactical and problem-solving skills -- combined with substantial experience handling a variety of complex, high stakes, matters in a boutique environment -- make us one the nation's most distinctive law firms.

With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., Caplin & Drysdale's core practice areas include:
For more information, please visit us at
Washington, DC Office:
One Thomas Circle NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
New York, NY Office:
295 Madison Avenue
12th Floor
New York, NY 10017


This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other reader. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising
It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.
© 2022 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
All Rights Reserved.