This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case Alexandru Bittner v. United States (No. 21‑1195) was argued on November 2, 2022 and decided on February 28, 2023.
According to American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel filed an amicus brief.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Alexandru Bittner)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
United States
According to United States, the United States pointed to the Internal Revenue Manual as the guiding document for assessing penalties.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court would hear argument in Case 21‑1195.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh questioned whether the government should impose draconian penalties on non‑willful violators.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether a non‑willful violation qualifies for the $10,000 penalty and the reasonable‑cause exception.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch clarified whether the reasonable‑cause defense still applies.
Justice Kavanaugh asked if a taxpayer who fails to file is eligible for the reasonable‑cause provision.
Justice Barrett asked whether having 20 accounts but records for only one counts as a single violation.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito inquired about any temporal reporting requirement for record‑keeping.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas noted that §5314 does not mention accounts.
Justice Alito asked how many violations arise when multiple accounts are reported with address errors.
According to Justice ALITO, justice Alito cited Letter 3709 stating the penalty cannot exceed $10,000.
Justice Alito asked whether the same penalty reading applies to criminal violations.
- [1] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 4
- [2] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 7
- [3] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 23
- [4] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 24
- [5] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 28
- [6] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 45
- [7] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 46
- [8] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 49
- [9] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 53
- [10] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 67
- [11] b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdf, p. 68
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- b8af0ddd13f291e9acce-r1-97cc5e57ff49878b.pdforal argument transcript
- cc9589b59fe9861d4ff9-r1-12b9360b9eb1a959.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.