The Tax Times: Federal Court Upholds IRS Penalty Power On Foreign Wedding Gifts: Zhang v. IRS

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adds a major new chapter to the running fight over international information‑return penalties. In Zhang v. Internal Revenue Service et al., No. 24‑cv‑8210 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2026), the court held that the IRS does have statutory authority to assess penalties under Internal Revenue Code section 6039F for failure to report large foreign gifts—dealing a setback to efforts to extend Farhy‑style arguments to foreign gift penalties.

The story: a foreign wedding, late reporting, and a big bill

The plaintiff, Jinming Zhang, is a U.S. person who received about $287,100 in wedding gifts from family members in China. Those gifts were not taxable income, but they did trigger a reporting obligation under section 6039F, which requires U.S. recipients of large foreign gifts to file Form 3520.

Zhang filed the required reporting form late. The IRS responded by asserting a section 6039F(c) penalty of roughly $68,000—about 25% of the gift value—consistent with the statutory regime that allows a 5% per‑month penalty up to a 25% cap for late or non‑filed disclosures. After paying, Zhang sued for a refund, arguing that the IRS lacked authority to assess the penalty and therefore could not collect it administratively.

The legal theory: importing Farhy into the foreign gift world

Zhang’s complaint tried to build on the Tax Court’s 2023 decision in Farhy v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. No. 6, which held that the IRS had no statutory authority to assess penalties under section 6038(b) for certain information‑return failures. In Farhy, the Tax Court reasoned that because Congress had not expressly made those penalties “assessable,” the IRS could not simply post them on its books and collect them administratively; instead, the government would have to bring a civil suit under 28 U.S.C. section 2461(a).

Zhang argued that section 6039F(c) penalties for late‑filed foreign gift reports sit in a similar posture. The statute imposes a penalty, but does not spell out assessment procedures or clearly designate the penalty as assessable. According to the complaint, that silence meant the IRS could not treat section 6039F penalties like other assessable penalties under section 6201(a) and could not use standard collection tools such as offsets, liens, and levies.

The court’s holding: yes, the IRS can assess section 6039F penalties

In its May 4, 2026 decision—reported at 2026 WL 1210079—the Northern District of California rejected Zhang’s challenge and upheld the IRS’s authority to assess the section 6039F penalty. Coverage indicates that the court concluded that:

· The general assessment authority in section 6201(a) is broad enough to encompass section 6039F penalties, even though 6039F does not use the word “assessable.”

· Congress’s structure and cross‑references for international information‑return penalties support the view that section 6039F penalties are meant to be assessed and administratively collected, not pursued only through stand‑alone civil lawsuits.

· As a result, Zhang’s refund challenge based on lack of assessment authority failed, and her ability to contest the penalty is limited to the usual grounds (reasonable cause, computation issues, etc.), not a broad attack on the IRS’s power to assess.

In practical terms, the court refused to extend Farhy beyond its specific statutory context and signaled that, at least in the foreign‑gift setting, the IRS’s existing penalty assessment practices pass muster.

Why this matters: limits on Farhy‑based refund strategies

Ever since Farhy, taxpayers and practitioners have explored whether other international information‑return penalties—Forms 3520, 3520‑A, 5471, 5472, 8865, 8938, and others—are vulnerable to similar statutory‑authority challenges. Commentators have warned that the reasoning could extend beyond the specific penalty at issue in Farhy, potentially undermining large swaths of the IRS’s international penalty regime.

Zhang is a clear signal that at least one federal district court is unwilling to take that leap for section 6039F. Combined with the IRS’s recent procedural changes and ongoing commentary criticizing “draconian” foreign gift penalties, it suggests a landscape where:

· Courts may enforce the penalties as legally assessable while still scrutinizing how the IRS exercises its discretion in imposing them.

· Pure “no assessment authority” refund suits under section 6039F will face an uphill battle in the Northern District of California and potentially beyond.

· Taxpayers may be better served focusing on reasonable cause, reliance on professional advice, and proportionality arguments, rather than betting the case on a Farhy‑style structural attack.

Practical takeaways for taxpayers and advisors

For U.S. persons with foreign family wealth, Zhang underscores a few key points.

· Late foreign gift reporting is expensive. The statute allows penalties up to 25% of the gift value, and courts are showing increasing willingness to uphold the IRS’s ability to assess them.

· Early, accurate filing is the best defense. If there is any possibility that foreign cash transfers or gifts exceed the section 6039F threshold, advisors should raise the Form 3520 issue proactively—especially in life‑events settings like weddings, house purchases, or relocations.

· If you’re already late, fix it thoughtfully. Several recent cases and commentaries highlight situations where taxpayers tried to clean up past non‑compliance and still faced large penalties, sometimes after receiving bad advice. A carefully documented reasonable‑cause narrative, anchored in contemporaneous facts and professional guidance, remains critical.

· Farhy is not a magic wand. While Farhy remains important for certain categories of penalties, Zhang shows that courts can distinguish foreign gift penalties and uphold the IRS’s assessment power, limiting how far Farhy will travel.

Looking ahead

Zhang will not be the final word on foreign gift penalties. Other refund suits and potential appeals may raise different statutory and procedural arguments, and scholarship is already questioning the structure and policy rationale behind section 6039F. At the same time, the IRS has begun to tweak its procedures for late‑filed foreign gift and trust forms, suggesting at least some recognition of how harsh current practices can be in real‑world cases.

For now, though, the message from Zhang is straightforward: section 6039F penalties are very real, and the IRS can assess them. For taxpayers with foreign family support, that makes careful planning, early advice, and meticulous documentation more important than ever.

Need To Successfully Contest Form 5471,
5472, 8938, & 3520 Late Filing Penalties?