United States v. COLLINS

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 18-1069 ) v. ) Judge Cathy Bissoon ) RICHARD COLLINS, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER For the purposes of the bench trial, and as relates to the standard-of-review in determining the validity of the FBAR penalty, the Court will follow the persuasive-authority in this Circuit holding that the de novo standard applies. U.S. v. Markus, 2018 WL 3435068, *4 (D. N.J. July 17, 2018) (citing other persuasive authority, and finding de novo review appropriate because “Section 5321 provides for no adjudicatory hearing before an FBAR penalty is assessed”); accord Bedrosian v. U.S, 2017 WL 3887520, *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 2017) (same); see also U.S. v. Williams, 2010 WL 3473311, *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 1 ,2010) (“[the] decision [is] based on the merits of the case and not on any record developed at the administrative level”)1 (relied upon in Markus and Bedrosian; citation to quoted source omitted). IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 12, 2020 s/Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge cc (via ECF email notification):

All Counsel of Record

1 Rev’d on other grounds, 489 Fed. Appx. 655 (4th Cir. July 20, 2012).