There is a an FBAR nonwillfull penalty opinion entered April 1, 2015 by the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Taxpayers should not be forced to sue in federal court to get an explanation as to the agency’s rationale or the evidence it considered in making its decision.  In addition the District Court implies incorrect FBAR triggers !
The court seemed to muff up the FBAR reporting requirement threshold and then didn’t even acknowledge it later on: pg. 1, sec. II, “Essentially any person residing in the Unites States with foreign accounts totaling more than $550,000 [is required to file an FBAR].”
In legal terms, the proper follow up question is “WTF?” I can’t figure out where Judge Jones got this $550,000 figure or, if he decided that the filing threshold was $550,000, why he wouldn’t be compelled to rule that Mr. Moore did not have an FBAR filing obligation and, thus, deserved no penalties. So isn’t it fair to ask, that if a federal district court, presided over by a judge that must be fairly smart, and obviously well-rounded, after being briefed on this issue and having a staff of highly motivated legal clerks to assist him, can’t recite the actual FBAR reporting requirement correctly, what does this say about the burden placed on regular taxpayers?
I cannot get over this questionable revolving door career move from Caroline D. Ciraolo. Up to december of 2014 she played a big part in defending exactly these type of NW cases like the one here evolving Mr. Moore and just 2 month later I see her signature under this motion trying to nail exactly one of those NW TP she was so adamant in defending before.
Moore v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43979 (W.D. WA 2015).  The opinion on summary judgment opinion is here.  The briefs  on the motion (excluding exhibits) are:

• US motion for summary judgment, here; 
• Moore's Response to the US Motion, here; and 
• the US Reply to Moore's Response, here.  

The docket entries as of 4/3/15 are here.
http://www.procedurallytaxing.com/district-court-fbar-penalty-opinion-raises-important-administrative-and-constitutional-law-issues/#respond

The cynical and embarrassing part of this case is that we learn that the US District Court for the Western District of Washington is only interested in procedural issues and that there is no binding law to guide the court when it comes to RC in the FBAR context or the standard of review issue .
What standard applied to the IRS’s determination on the FBAR penalty?
The court accepted the government’s position that it “should determine de novo whether Mr. Moore is subject to an FBAR penalty, but should review the IRS’s determination of the amount of that penalty only for abuse of discretion.”
Mr. Moore`s case thus opens the door to DOJ in the future to test the waters on perhaps getting a more deferential abuse of discretion standard of review on the question of liability.

I just love these US motions for summary judgement especially when the facts and circumstances are less than clear..........just like in US vs. Mr. Hom. Summary judgment cannot be granted where there is a genuine dispute as to any material fact and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Really ``one class act department`` the IRS and Treasury in even threatening to offset Mr. Moore´s (who is at least 80 years old) social security wages prior to judicial review to pay for the FBAR penalty assessed.
The government argues that Mr. Moore ``should have known``....this by any fact-finding standard is ridiculous with regards to the FBAR reporting requirements and the absence of any civil fraud penalty under IRC 6663. Tax loss of $12,254 for 4 years. Government fails to produce evidence that Mr. Moore`s foreign account even generated taxable income from 1990 to 2002.
This brings me back to the big disparity and unjust differentiation between omission of foreign source income vs. domestic income !
It is insane and embarrassing for a country like the USA that even in 2015 the government still has carte blanche to assess the FBAR related penalties and before a judicial review takes place does the usual over-reach with threats of levies etc.
I like to remind everybody here that due process requires a fair and impartial hearing before a trial of fact who is disinterested and free from any form of bias or predisposition regarding the outcome of the case. It is just laughable that the government thinks by going through the motions by providing an opportunity to be ``heard and appeal``, in and of itself should be enough to render due process of law. The joke is that the hearing is done by a RA employed by the IRS whose decision is rubber stamped by an Appeals Officer who is employed as well by the IRS. And if matters were not already bad enough these two IRS employees determine that RC was not present BUT give no explanation or articulation of the RC factors considered in this so called ``unbiased`` mitigation.....a total travesty and they even have the nerve to artfully describe this as ``the IRS is exercising its discretion``.

 Mr. Moore got tired of the IRS taking their time, so he left the program, and was audited under normal rules and if you read between the lines - the District Court exposes why the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA) needs to go. Mr. Moore only owed approx. $12,000 in additional tax but was assessed a penalty of $40,000. The court said that “this is beside the point.” So, yes the court is right. Tax compliance should be besides the point (purpose of the BSA portions of Title 31 ) . BUT now the inquiry should be what factual basis -if any- exists that Mr. Moore was involved in any type of criminal activity? That he was using international banking to fund some sort of criminal enterprise? The legislative intent of the BSA is to create an easy way to assess civil penalties to financially cripple “the really mean and nasty guys” from doing whatever evil they are trying to do. Real nasty guys like terrorists, organized crime and international criminal cartels.
Mr. Moore isn’t even alleged to have committed tax evasion. Yes, he underreported income. But underreporting income is a far cry from tax evasion. Tax evasion requires a specific intent to defraud. Millions of American file amended returns to include income they didn’t realize was actually taxable. Millions of American I bet right now haven’t included all their income. Not because they want to commit tax evasion, but simply because they didn’t know.
The District Court correctly reaffirms that the Internal Revenue Manual is not the law but rather what the IRS is trained on.
Why FBAR penalties? The IRS had slam-dunk Form 5471 penalties at $10,000 per year and blew its chance to assess them! I think Caroline C. Ciraolo and friends maybe wanted an FBAR headline? I think the IRS will probably lose this assessment.
As more than a 10% owner of a foreign corporation, Mr. Moore (who actually owned 100%) had a Form 5471 reporting obligation. I would assume he didn’t file these fairly onerous forms.
If you don’t file a Form 5471, the IRS has forever to assess them, unless of course, they close out your tax audit, which the IRS did.

The court basically said “you are totally off the farm” to the IRS about the 2005 assessment. The IRS may well lose on that year when the court decides on that it was “arbitrary and capricious” for jumping the gun and making the assessment earlier than it said it would for no reason.
Yet, the IRS is determined to win at any cost on these FBAR cases.
The IRS is trying to make an example of Mr. Moore. Again, they must have had slam-dunk Form 5471 penalties they could have easily slapped him with and for more years. But Form 5471 doesn’t have the same zing as FBAR I suppose. The IRS is throwing all of its resources to making these penalties stick. Recall in Williams, they went after the defendant even though he went to jail for tax evasion on the exact unreported foreign accounts he did not file an FBAR on (that is the IRS knew full well of the foreign accounts even though an FBAR was not filed), and in McBride, that defendant didn’t even have control over the accounts, and in fact the money in the accounts was stolen from him!
On the other side, I can’t imagine that Mr. Moore and his legal team are fighting this because they think it is financially worth it. I doubt it could be. But rather, and also it is Mr. Moore who is suing the federal government and not the other way around, they are taking a stand.
Mr. Moore was the one to bring this fight to the government!