Joint accounts : the date of the FBAR filing violation is 6/30 of the year following the calendar year for which the account is being reported

--------- For each co-owner against whom a penalty is determined, the penalty will be based on the co-owner's percentage ownership of the highest balance of the foreign financial account.---------
 
I think who earns may not be the same as who owns. Assume, for example, the H (US citizen) and W (nonUS citizen) reside in France with a community property law that says 50% of earnings for personal services belong 1/2 to each, then if W earns everything in the account, it is still owned 1/2 by each. So, if W has no FBAR filing obligation, H's penalty would be based on the 50% he owned. At least that is how I interpret the concept.
If W has an FBAR filing requirement, then 100% of the account is the penalty base, but split 50-50 to each of them.
Of course, in applying the offshore penalty in OVDP, the IRS has always only applied it to the owned portion of the account for the U.S. taxpayer.
Since 100% of europe goes by a community property type law one way or another, this means very good news for ``H`` because his FBAR penalty will only be based on 50% of the joint account value. There are inconsistencies here.
Why should it be based on the highest joint account balance ?
Again the date of the filing violation is 6/30 of the year following the calendar year for which the account is being reported. I am not sure where the IRS outside of OVDI gets this from !?
Hazards of Litigation present.
Example:
2012 : joint account 6/30 balance $150K but max. balance $300K
Penalty base should be $75K for ``H`` and not $150K !!

willful : ---------In no event will the total penalty amount exceed 100 % of the highest aggregate balance of all unreported foreign financial accounts during the years under examination-------------
Example :
2010 : $250.000 aggregate balances as of 6/30 and not high/max. balance
2011 : $250.000 aggregate balances as of 6/30 and not high/max. balance
2012 : $250.000 aggregate balances as of 6/30 and not high/max. balance
Before for willful penalties was $100k or 50% whatever is greater. Which would have been hypothetically $375K (3x125K)
Now worst case scenario is 100% of $250K = $250K which is a reduction of $125K from earlier guidance.
willful: ---------In most cases, the total penalty amount for all years under
examination will be limited to 50 % of the highest aggregate
balance of all unreported foreign financial accounts during the years
under examination.-------------------
I would like to emphasize by aggregate balance we are talking about the amount as of 6/30 for each tax year under examination.
To use the example from the guidance :
2010 : $50.000 aggregate balances as of 6/30 and not high/max. balance
2011 : $100.000 aggregate balances as of 6/30 and not high/max. balance
2012 : $200.000 aggregate balances as of 6/30 and not high/max. balance

NW :  -------------- In no event will the total amount of the penalties for nonwillful violations exceed 50% of the highest aggregate balance of all unreported foreign financial accounts for the years under examination.-----------------

 This really feels like a turkish bazar when I take into consideration the $10K max. penalty per year and account and holder vs. the NW mitigation guidelines and this new guidance.
I still do not see the original intentions of Congress well represented here.
There is supposed to be consideration of the desired result “of improving compliance in the future” which can be obtained without penalties.
Further, there is nothing in the Statues that require full application of all technical penalties. The Federal courts have consistently held that when Congress uses the word “may”, it means “may”, not “must” or “shall”, so even absent the IRM FBAR policy guidelines, there is discretion that the IRS can exercise. Additionally, it is obvious that the IRS appreciates the discretionary nature of its authority. I quote from a IRS Division Council memo providing guidance on the application of civil FBAR penalties (“Guidance Memo”) “The penalty statute, however, provides for discretion in asserting the penalty.
The purpose for the penalty, and the reason for the flexibility Congress provided in asserting the penalty is to encourage compliance. There is no requirement to assert a separate FBAR penalty for every possible technical violation encountered and doing so could lead, in some cases, to an absurd result.”