Court Rejects Government Summary Judgment Motion in FBAR Willful Penalty Collection Suit (8/28/19)

In United States v. Schwarzbaum (S.D. Fla. No. 18-cv-81147), Order on Motion for Summary Judgment dated 8/23/19, here, the Court denied summary judgment for the Government in an FBAR willful penalty collection suit.  The Court Listener docket entries with available links to some of the underlying docket entries is here.  (Readers wanting to follow the case might check in on the docket entries link for updates.)

Basically, the court rather cryptically concludes that willfulness is an intent issue that requires a fact trial, whichever standard is used.  Whether or not denial of the summary judgment motion was proper, I don't think there is enough meat for me to chew on there.  So I leave that part of the decision to readers.

The issue that did catch my attention was the fact that this taxpayer entered OVDI in 2011 and opted out of the civil penalty regime in OVDI, thus taking his chance the resulting audit.  He apparently lost that bet.  But, one of the consequences of joining OVDI was that he gave one or more consents to extend the statute of limitations for the FBAR penalty assessment (as was required by the program).  The Court, also somewhat cryptically, held the consent(s) to be valid (Slip Op., at 8-9):

To the extent that Schwarzbaum argues that the penalties are time-barred, the argument lacks merit. Although Title 31 does not expressly authorize the extension of the applicable statute of limitations by agreement, it does not expressly prohibit such extensions. Schwarzbaum has failed to point to any legal authority indicating that such extensions would be improper. See  [*9] Melford v. Kahane & Assocs., 371 F. Supp. 3d 1116, 1126 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“Generally, a litigant who fails to press a point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the point. The court will not do his research for him.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Notably, Schwarzbaum does not dispute that he signed consents agreeing to extend the time during which FBAR penalties could be assessed and collected. See ECF Nos. [44-5], [44-6], [44-7]. Rather, in his Reply he acknowledges the lack of authority, argues that the USA relies upon three irrelevant cases in its Response, and then endeavors to distinguish them. However, Schwarzbaum ignores that it is he who bears the burden of establishing the defense of statute of limitations in the first instance. See, e.g. Feldman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 20 F.3d 1128, 1132 (11th Cir. 1994) (“When a taxpayer raises the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, the taxpayer bears the burden to prove that defense.”) (citation omitted). Here, Schwarzbaum has failed to provide any authority to support his argument that an agreement to extend the time to assess FBAR penalties under Title 31 is invalid.

I have previously discussed the statute of limitations issue:

• Report on Webinar on Opting Out and Litigating FBAR Penalties (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 1/17/13; with Caveat Update on 2/1/13), here.  Item 10 on that blog is:

 10. On consents to extend the statute of limitations (sometimes called waivers), Mr. Breen confirmed that the Form 872 extends the statute only if the statute was open when the consent was signed by the IRS but the consent (waiver) for the FBAR penalty is a traditional statutory waiver of an affirmative defense and thus applies to even years otherwise closed at the time it is signed by the IRS. (At least, that is the IRS's position and, I suspect, it is correct because there is no statute such as Section 6501(c)(4) that is interpreted to require an open statute when the consent is signed.