The obvious first question that comes to mind is what is considered “cash” for purposes of Form 8300? Cash is defined in Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I-1(c)(1) as: U.S. and foreign coin and currency received in any transaction; or Monetary instruments, such as cashier’s check, money order, bank draft, or traveler’s check having a face amount of $10,000 or less that is received in a designated reporting transaction (defined below), or that is received in any transaction in which the recipient knows that the instrument is being used in an attempt to avoid the reporting of the transaction under either section 6050I or 31 USC section 5331.

個(gè)顯而易見的問題是，在表格8300中什么是“現(xiàn)金”？《財(cái)政條例》第1.6050I-1（c）（1）節(jié)將現(xiàn)金定義為：在任何交易中收到的美國和外國硬幣和貨幣；或在指定申報(bào)交易（定義見下文）中收到的票面金額不超過10000美元的銀行本票、匯票、銀行匯票或旅行支票；或者是在任何交易中收到的，在該交易中，接收方知道該票據(jù)正被用于試圖避免《美國法典》第31卷第 6050I 節(jié)或5331節(jié)的規(guī)定的交易申報(bào)。

Cash does not include a check drawn on the payer’s own account, such as a personal check [Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I–1(c)(1)(ii)].

現(xiàn)金不包括付款人自己賬戶上的支票，如個(gè)人支票[Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I–1(c)(1)(ii)]。

The rules for reporting monetary instruments received in a “designated reporting transaction” can be complex. A “designated reporting transaction” is “a retail sale … of a consumer durable, a collectible, or a travel or entertainment activity” [Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I-1(c)(iii)]. A consumer durable is defined as an “item of tangible personal property of a type that, under ordinary usage, can reasonably be expected to remain useful for at least 1 year, and that has a sales price of more than $10,000” [Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I-(c)(2)].

報(bào)告在“指定申報(bào)交易”中收到的貨幣工具的規(guī)則可能很復(fù)雜。“指定申報(bào)交易”是指“消費(fèi)者耐用品、收藏品或旅游或娛樂活動(dòng)……的零售銷售”[Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I-1(c)(iii)]。耐用消費(fèi)品的定義是“在正常使用情況下，可以合理預(yù)期至少使用一年，銷售價(jià)格超過10000美元的有形個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)?！?/span>[Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I-(c)(2)].。

The Form 8300 requirements apply not just to the direct seller or service provider, but the person who acts on behalf of another as an agent as well. An agent who receives cash from a principal and uses it within 15 days in a second cash transaction is not required to report initial receipt of the cash if the agent discloses the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of the principal to the recipient of the second reportable cash transaction; the recipient in the second transaction is required to file Form 8300 [Treasury Regulations section 6050I-1(a)(3)]. The Form 8300 requirements also apply in other situations where cash is received on account of another, such as a business that collects delinquent accounts receivables for other businesses. [Treasury Regulations section 6050I-1(a)(2)].

表格8300要求不僅適用于直銷商或服務(wù)提供商，還適用于代表另一方作為代理人的人員。代理人從委托人處收到現(xiàn)金并在15天內(nèi)用于第二筆現(xiàn)金交易的，如果代理人向第二筆應(yīng)申報(bào)現(xiàn)金交易的收款人披露了委托人的姓名、地址和納稅人識(shí)別號(hào)（TIN），則無需報(bào)告首次收到的現(xiàn)金；第二筆交易中的收件人需要提交表格8300[Treasury Regulations section 6050I-1(a)(3)]。表格8300的要求也適用于其他情況，如為其他企業(yè)收取拖欠應(yīng)收賬款的企業(yè)[Treasury Regulations section 6050I-1(a)(2)]。

In addition, the IRS encourages businesses to file Forms 8300 to report “suspicious transactions,” transactions in which it appears that a person is attempting to cause Form 8300 not to be filed, or to file a false or incomplete form (IRM 4.26.10.7.1). There are some exceptions to these requirements. To avoid duplicate reporting, financial institutions that are required to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) do not have to file Form 8300 [Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I-1(d)(1)]. There also is no requirement to report a cash transaction if the entire transaction occurs outside of the United States [Treasury Regulations section 6050I-1(d)(4)].

此外，美國國稅局鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)提交8300表格，以報(bào)告“可疑交易”，即似乎有人試圖阻止8300表格的提交，或提交虛假或不完整的表格（IRM 4.26.10.7.1）。這里有一些例外要求。為避免重復(fù)報(bào)告，要求提交貨幣交易報(bào)告（Currency Transaction Reports, CTR）的金融機(jī)構(gòu)不必提交8300表格[Treasury Regulations section 1.6050I-1(d)(1)]。如果整個(gè)交易發(fā)生在美國境外，也不要求報(bào)告現(xiàn)金交易 [Treasury Regulations section 6050I-1(d)(4)]。

If the failure to comply was the result of intentional disregard of the filing requirements or annual statement requirements, the penalty is substantially larger. For intentional disregard of the rules requiring the filing of Form 8300, the penalty is the greater of $25,000 or the amount of cash received in such transaction, not to exceed $100,000 [IRC section 6721(e)(2)]. For failure to furnish customer statements, the penalty is the greater of $500 per failure, or 10% of the aggregate amount of the items to be reported. There is no aggregate annual limitation for intentional disregard penalties [IRC sections 6721(e); 6722(e)].

如果未能遵守是由于故意無視備案要求或年度報(bào)表要求，懲罰要大得多。如果故意無視提交8300表格要求的規(guī)則，處罰金額為在25,000美元或在此類交易中收到的現(xiàn)金金額中取大者，但不超過100,000美元[IRC section 6721(e)(2)]。對(duì)于未能提供客戶對(duì)賬單的，罰款為在每次失敗500美元或待報(bào)告項(xiàng)目總額的10%中取大者。對(duì)于故意無視規(guī)則的處罰沒有年度總限額 [IRC sections 6721(e); 6722(e)]。

A failure is due to intentional disregard if it is “knowing or willful” [Treasury Regulations section 301.6721(f)(2)]; Denbo v. United States, 988 F.2d 1029, 1034-35 (10th Cir. 1993), defining “willful” conduct under section 6672 as a “voluntary, conscious and intentional decision”]. This determination is based on all of the facts and circumstances [Purser Truck Sales v. United States, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (Md. Ga. 2008)].

如果是“明知或故意”的，則申報(bào)失敗被認(rèn)為是故意的忽視[Treasury Regulations section 301.6721(f)(2)]; Denbo v. United States, 988 F.2d 1029, 1034-35 (10th Cir. 1993), 將第6672條下的“故意”行為定義為“自愿、自覺和故意的決定”]。這個(gè)決定是基于所有的事實(shí)和實(shí)際情況[Purser Truck Sales v. United States, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (Md. Ga. 2008)]。

These facts and circumstances include, but are not limited to the following:

這些事實(shí)和情況包括但不限于：

Whether the failure to file timely or the failure to include correct information is part of a pattern of conduct by the person who filed the return of repeatedly failing to file timely or repeatedly failing to include correct information;

不及時(shí)提交或未包含正確信息是否屬于多次未及時(shí)提交或多次提交未包含正確信息的申報(bào)表的行為模式的一部分；

Whether correction was promptly made upon discovery of the failure;

發(fā)現(xiàn)提交失敗后是否及時(shí)糾正；

Whether the filer corrects a failure to file or a failure to include correct information within 30 days after the date of any written request from the Internal Revenue Service to file or to correct;

申報(bào)人是否在美國國稅局提出請(qǐng)?zhí)峤换蛘?qǐng)更正的書面要求之日起30天內(nèi)糾正未提交或未包含正確信息的情況；

Whether the amount of the information reporting penalties is less than the cost of complying with the requirement to file timely or to include correct information on an information return. [Treasury Regulations section 301.6721-1(f)(3)].

信息報(bào)告處罰金額是否低于遵守及時(shí)提交文件或在信息申報(bào)表中包含正確信息的要求的成本[Treasury Regulations section 301.6721-1(f)(3)]。

There are few reported cases involving these penalties, but they indicate that there must be something more than just poor recordkeeping practices or ignorance of the rules for the IRS to impose heightened penalties. Because of the “extreme harshness” of the penalties involved, intentional disregard is “a high standard of culpability, requiring much more than merely negligent or reckless disregard” [Purser Truck Sales at 1339].

很少有涉及這些處罰的案例被報(bào)道，但它們表明，除了記錄保存方法不佳或?qū)σ?guī)定的無知之外，肯定還有其他原因讓國稅局加大處罰力度。由于所涉及的處罰“極其嚴(yán)厲”，故意無視是“一個(gè)高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的罪責(zé)，要求受罰者遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不止是由疏忽大意或魯莽的漠視”[Purser Truck Sales at 1339]。

A clear case of intentional disregard is Bickham Lincoln-Mercury v. United States [168 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 1999)], in which the taxpayer had previously pled guilty to criminal charges for failure to file Form 8300, and later withheld information from the IRS in a deliberate effort to assist a customer who wanted to conceal the amount of cash paid for a car. On the other side of the spectrum is Kruse, Inc. v. United States [213 F. Supp. 2d 939, 944 (N.D. Ind. 2002)], in which a jury found that the IRS had improperly imposed the intentional failure to file penalties. There was evidence that the taxpayer honestly believed that auction businesses were exempt from the Form 8300 requirements. This belief was wrong, but because the taxpayer genuinely held it, he did not act willfully. The taxpayer’s defense was bolstered by the fact that he did not make any attempt to conceal his cash receipts but kept accurate books and records and deposited all cash receipts in his bank account.

一個(gè)明顯的故意忽視案例是Bickham Lincoln-Mercury訴美國案[168 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 1999)]，在該案中，納稅人曾因未提交8300表而被刑事指控有罪，后來，為了幫助一位想隱瞞買車現(xiàn)金數(shù)額的客戶，他故意向國稅局隱瞞信息。另一反例是Kruse，Inc.訴美國[213 F.Supp.2d 939，944（N.D.Ind.2002）]，陪審團(tuán)認(rèn)為美國國稅局對(duì)故意不提交行為的處罰不恰當(dāng)。有證據(jù)表明，納稅人誠實(shí)地認(rèn)為拍賣業(yè)務(wù)不受8300表格要求的約束。這種想法是錯(cuò)誤的，但由于納稅人是真誠的，他并沒有故意行事。納稅人的辯護(hù)得到了支持，因?yàn)樗麤]有試圖隱瞞他的現(xiàn)金收入，而是保存了準(zhǔn)確的賬簿和記錄，并將所有現(xiàn)金收入存入他的銀行賬戶。

In Tysinger Motor Co. [428 F. Supp. 2d 480 (E.D. Va. 2006)], the line between intentional disregard and negligence is less clear. The IRS conducted a compliance review and found that the family-owned automobile dealership had failed to report several transactions involving cash in excess of $10,000. The IRS conducted a second review, in which it again found that the company had been inconsistent with its Form 8300 compliance. After the second review, the chief financial officer acknowledged that he was aware of the Form 8300 requirements and of the penalties for failure to file, and the company implemented a system to identify cash transactions. The system did not work, however, and during a third compliance review, the IRS found that the company had failed to file Forms 8300 for four of the eight reportable transactions during the period under review. The company prevailed on its defense that it did not intentionally disregard its obligation but that the failures to file were simply mistakes, the result of sloppy recordkeeping and an inadequate compliance system.

在Tysinger Motor 公司案中[428 F. Supp. 2d 480 (E.D. Va. 2006)]，故意忽視和疏忽之間的界限不太清楚。國稅局進(jìn)行了一次合規(guī)性審查，發(fā)現(xiàn)這家家族汽車經(jīng)銷商未能報(bào)告幾筆涉及現(xiàn)金超過10000美元的交易。美國國稅局進(jìn)行了第二次審查，再次發(fā)現(xiàn)該公司實(shí)際情況與8300表格的合規(guī)性不符。在第二次審查之后，首席財(cái)務(wù)官承認(rèn)，他知道8300表格的要求和未能提交文件的處罰，但公司實(shí)施了一個(gè)識(shí)別現(xiàn)金交易的系統(tǒng)。然而，該系統(tǒng)不起作用，在第三次合規(guī)性審查期間，美國國稅局發(fā)現(xiàn)，在審查期間，該公司未能為8筆可申報(bào)交易中的4筆提交8300表格。該公司辯稱，公司并非故意無視其義務(wù)，但未能提交文件只是錯(cuò)誤，是記錄保管不善和合規(guī)性處理系統(tǒng)不健全的結(jié)果。