Non-Wilful Certification for Finance Professionals in London

A finance career does not make missed US filings wilful, but it changes how your statement will be read. The non-wilful certification for finance professionals has to explain, with documents behind it, why someone fluent in client-side FATCA rules still missed their own FBARs, Forms 8938 or US income. Boilerplate will not carry that weight.

This guide is written for US citizens and green card holders working in London financial services: portfolio managers, bankers, traders, private wealth managers, compliance and onboarding staff. At Jungle Tax we prepare streamlined submissions for this group regularly, and the pattern is consistent. The returns are rarely the hard part. The narrative is. For the general mechanics of drafting, see our Form 14653 drafting guide; for the legal standard on recklessness, see our analysis of reckless conduct after Reyes; and if you only recently discovered your US status, the accidental American narrative guide fits you better than this one.

Does working in financial services make my conduct wilful?

No. Job title is not a legal test. The IRS defines non-wilful conduct as negligence, inadvertence, mistake or a good faith misunderstanding of the law, and that can apply to a trader as much as to a teacher. What changes is the evidential burden you carry in the narrative: a reviewer will expect a credible explanation of why your professional knowledge did not reach your personal affairs.

Two points sit underneath that answer. First, wilfulness is about what you knew, or ought obviously to have known, about your own obligations. The Internal Revenue Manual places the burden of establishing FBAR wilfulness on the IRS and treats recklessness as an objective question: whether a person clearly ought to have known of a grave risk of non-compliance and could easily have checked. A fund manager who has never touched a client tax form sits differently on that spectrum from a FATCA operations lead who reviews US-person indicia every week.

Second, the form itself tells you that background matters. Form 14653 (Rev. 3-2025) and Form 14654 both instruct the filer to give specific reasons that include "personal background, financial background, and anything else you believe is relevant." For most readers of this guide, financial background means your career. Leaving it out is not neutral. It looks like an omission, and your occupation already appears on every Form 1040 you sign.

What must the certification actually contain?

The certification must state that you are eligible, that you have filed all required FBARs, and that every failure was non-wilful, followed by a narrative of specific facts. The current forms require the whole story, favourable and unfavourable, the source of funds in each foreign account, your dealings with those accounts, and details of any adviser you relied on.

Reading the 2025 revision of Form 14653 line by line, the statement of facts has to cover the following. Form 14654 asks for the same narrative and adds the penalty computation.

• Specific reasons for each failure: unreported income, unpaid tax, missing information returns, and missing FBARs. A single sentence for all four rarely works.
• Personal and financial background, which for a City professional means education, qualifications, roles held and what those roles really involved.
• Source of funds for every foreign account or asset, and whether you opened it while living abroad or for a business reason.
• Your contacts with each account: deposits, withdrawals, and investment or management decisions. For someone who manages money for a living, this section is often where credibility is won or lost.
• Adviser reliance: if you relied on a professional, the adviser's name, address and telephone number and a summary of what they advised.
• Separate reasons for each spouse where a joint certification is filed and the explanations differ.

The form also warns that a submission lacking a narrative statement of facts is incomplete and will not qualify for streamlined penalty relief. You sign under penalties of perjury, and you acknowledge that evidence of wilfulness or fraud can lead to examination, FBAR penalties or referral to Criminal Investigation. That declaration is the reason we never draft a statement that softens a fact. The IRS guidance on the streamlined filing compliance procedures sets the eligibility rules, and the current Form 14653 carries the narrative instructions quoted above.

Is it Form 14653 or Form 14654 for an American working in London?

Most London-based Americans use Form 14653 under the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures, provided they had no US abode and spent at least 330 full days outside the US in one of the three most recent years. Those who fail that test, such as people recently relocated to New York, use Form 14654 and pay the 5% penalty.

Finance professionals trip over the residency test more than most. A rotation to the New York office, a long secondment, or a transfer back to the US before the submission is filed can move you from the foreign to the domestic procedure. Count the days from travel records, not memory.

Point	Foreign Offshore (Form 14653)	Domestic Offshore (Form 14654)	UK / HMRC side
Who uses it	No US abode and 330 full days outside the US in any one of the last three years	US persons who fail the non-residency test and filed US returns for the last three years	UK resident individuals whose UK returns omitted income or gains
Returns covered	Three most recent US tax years with a passed due date	Three years, by amended return	Depends on behaviour; HMRC time limits differ for careless and deliberate errors
FBARs covered	Six most recent years	Six most recent years	No UK equivalent of the FBAR for personal accounts
Offshore penalty	None	5% of the highest year-end aggregate of affected foreign assets	Penalties based on behaviour and disclosure quality
Narrative	Statement of facts on the form or a signed attachment	Same, plus penalty computation	Disclosure via the Worldwide Disclosure Facility where offshore matters are involved
Signed under	Penalties of perjury	Penalties of perjury	Declaration that the disclosure is correct and complete

Why does a boilerplate narrative fail for this reader?

Generic statements ("I was unaware of my filing obligations") are written for people with no reason to know. A reviewer reading your Form 1040, which lists your occupation and shows employment income from a regulated financial firm, will notice the mismatch. Credibility comes from explaining what you specifically knew and did not know, in your own terms.

We see three kinds of template language cause problems for City clients. The first claims total ignorance of FATCA when the person plainly sat through annual compliance training that mentioned it. The second describes accounts in vague terms ("some savings") when the filer is someone who prices risk to the basis point. The third blames "complexity" without saying which rule was misunderstood. Each reads as evasive, even when the underlying conduct was innocent.

The better approach is precise and limited. Say what your role involved. Say what it did not involve. Then explain, with dates, when the personal obligation came to your attention and what you did next. Honesty about sophistication tends to help, because it makes the rest of the account believable.

How do you explain the gap between professional knowledge and your own filings?

Describe the actual boundary of your role. Knowing that your employer reports US-person accounts to HMRC under FATCA is different from knowing that you personally must file FinCEN Form 114 and Form 8938. Many professionals understood the institutional regime well and never connected it to their own ISA, pension or current account.

The distinction is real, and it is worth spelling out. FATCA, as most London finance staff meet it, is an institutional obligation: UK financial institutions identify US account holders and report them to HMRC, which passes the information to the IRS under the intergovernmental agreement. The individual obligations are separate regimes. The FBAR is a Bank Secrecy Act filing with FinCEN once aggregate foreign balances exceed $10,000 at any point in the year. Form 8938 is a tax-return attachment with much higher thresholds for filers living abroad. A banker can spend years on the first regime and never learn the detail of the second.

That said, the explanation has to fit your history. Useful questions to answer in the narrative:

• Did your role involve reviewing US indicia, W-9s or W-8BENs for clients? If so, say so, and explain what the training covered and what it did not.
• Did anyone at work ever tell you that you, as a US citizen, had personal reporting duties? Firms sometimes circulate staff memos; if you received one, it belongs in the story.
• Were your personal finances handled by someone else, or by you? Delegation is not a defence on its own, but it explains why knowledge did not transfer.
• Did you hold signature authority over employer accounts? That can create a separate FBAR filing question of its own, which our FBAR penalty calculator page and team can help you scope.

Which facts help, and which facts hurt?

Facts that support non-wilful conduct include reliance on a preparer who was told you were a US citizen, UK-only advice, and returns showing little or no US tax because UK tax credits absorbed it. Facts that need careful handling include W-9s signed personally, FBARs filed and then abandoned, and accounts opened after a FATCA letter.

The table below reflects the reasoning in the IRS guidance and the form instructions. It does not predict outcomes; each submission is judged on its own record.

Fact	Tends to	Why, in the IRS framework	How to evidence it
A UK or US preparer was told you were a US citizen and still did not raise FBAR or 8938	Help	The form asks for adviser details and advice; reliance on a professional with full facts supports a good faith misunderstanding	Engagement letters, onboarding questionnaires, emails showing citizenship was disclosed
A preparer was never told about US citizenship	Neutral to unhelpful	Reliance only counts if the adviser had the relevant facts	State it plainly; explain why it did not occur to you to mention it
Advice received was UK-only (for example, an employer-funded UK tax adviser)	Help, modestly	Shows you sought advice but within a UK frame	The scope letter or adviser correspondence
UK tax paid exceeds the US liability, so little or no US tax was due	Help	Weakens any inference of a motive to evade; consistent with oversight	Pro forma US computations with foreign tax credits for each year
Accounts are ordinary salary, savings, ISA or workplace pension accounts in the UK	Help	The form asks whether accounts were opened while living abroad; local everyday accounts fit that	Account opening dates against UK arrival date
Your role involved FATCA onboarding, KYC or US-person classification	Hurt, unless explained	Raises the question of what you ought to have known about your own duties	Job descriptions, training materials (summarised), a precise account of the role's scope
You signed a W-9 for your own account at a UK bank or platform	Hurt, mildly to seriously	Confirms you knew the institution treated you as a US person; what you understood next matters	Copy of the form, any covering letter, and what you did after signing
FBARs were filed for some years, then stopped	Hurt significantly	Shows awareness of the obligation; the reason for stopping becomes central	The filed FBARs, and documents explaining the change (preparer change, move, illness)
New accounts opened after a bank's FATCA self-certification letter	Hurt	Suggests the risk was flagged and not followed up	The letter, your response, and any advice sought at the time
A filed Schedule B answered "no" to the foreign account question	Hurt	The IRM treats the wrong or missing Schedule B answer as a significant fact	Who completed the return and on what information

A hurtful fact is not fatal because it exists. It becomes dangerous when it is left out, because the IRS may already hold it. UK FATCA reporting means the IRS can often see your accounts before you describe them.

A step-by-step drafting process

Draft from documents, not memory: confirm eligibility, build a dated chronology, describe your role precisely, map each account, then confront every unhelpful fact directly. Finish with a consistency check against the returns, FBARs and your UK filings before you sign under penalties of perjury.

1. Confirm eligibility. No open IRS civil examination for any year, no criminal investigation, a valid SSN, and for Form 14653 the 330-day non-residency test with no US abode.
2. Assemble the record. Prior US returns, any FBARs ever filed, UK returns, bank and platform opening documents, W-9s or self-certifications, and correspondence with every adviser.
3. Write the chronology first. Arrival in the UK, each job change, each account opened, each return filed, the moment you learned of the gap, and what you did in the following weeks.
4. Describe your role accurately. One or two sentences on what your work involved, and a sentence on what it did not. If you worked in onboarding or tax operations, own it and explain the boundary.
5. Account for every foreign asset. Source of funds, why it exists, who made the investment decisions, and how money moved in and out, as the form requires.
6. Address each unhelpful fact by name. A W-9, an abandoned FBAR, a Schedule B answer. Explain what you understood at the time, truthfully, without arguing.
7. Set out adviser reliance. Name, address, telephone, what they were told and what they advised.
8. Show the tax result. If foreign tax credits leave little US tax, say so and point to the returns.
9. Test for consistency. The narrative, the amended or late returns, the FBARs and Forms 8938 must tell the same story, and must not contradict what you have told HMRC.
10. Read it as a sceptic would. Strike anything that minimises. Then sign, knowing it is a perjury-backed statement.

Worked scenario (hypothetical)

This example is invented for illustration. It is not based on any client, and the outcome of a real submission depends on its own facts.

Daniel is a US citizen who moved to London in 2016 to join an asset manager as an equity analyst, later becoming a portfolio manager. He has never worked in client onboarding. A UK accounting practice has prepared his UK returns and, from 2018, his US Form 1040, which claims foreign tax credits and shows nil US tax. He told that practice he was American; their questionnaire records it. Nobody mentioned the FBAR or Form 8938. He holds a stocks and shares ISA invested in UK-domiciled funds, a workplace pension, two current accounts and a cash savings account. In 2019 a UK platform asked him to complete a W-9, which he did.

A weak draft would say: "I was not aware of FBAR requirements and relied on my accountant." A reviewer reading that from a portfolio manager will want more. A stronger draft explains that his role involved equity research and stock selection, not tax classification of clients; that his compliance training covered market conduct and treated FATCA as an operations matter; that he gave his US citizenship to his preparer at engagement, with the questionnaire attached; that the preparer filed his 1040 each year without raising foreign account reporting; that he understood the W-9 as an identity formality for the platform, did not seek advice on it, and accepts in hindsight that he should have; and that the ISA funds also carry PFIC reporting he did not know existed. The returns show his UK tax exceeded any US liability in every year.

Now change two facts. Suppose Daniel had worked in FATCA operations, and had filed FBARs himself for 2017 and 2018 before stopping. The narrative would then have to explain why someone who knew and complied chose, or forgot, to continue. If the honest answer is that he decided filing was not worth the trouble because no tax was due, that is not a good faith misunderstanding, and the streamlined certification would be the wrong document to sign.

When is streamlined the wrong route?

If you cannot honestly describe your conduct as negligent, inadvertent or a good faith misunderstanding, do not certify that it was. A conscious decision not to file, or deliberate avoidance of finding out, points to other procedures, and an adviser should review the facts before anything is submitted.

The alternatives include the delinquent FBAR and delinquent international information return procedures, where all income was reported and only the forms are missing, and the IRS Criminal Investigation Voluntary Disclosure Practice where conduct may have been wilful. We compare them in detail in delinquent FBAR vs streamlined vs voluntary disclosure. Choosing streamlined to save money, when the facts do not fit, swaps a civil problem for a much larger one. Our FBAR penalty calculator can help frame the exposure before you decide.

What should a London finance professional do on the UK side?

For most City Americans, UK tax is collected through PAYE and self-assessment, so the US gap is not a UK problem. It becomes one when UK returns missed income, often US brokerage dividends or gains. HMRC treats those as offshore matters, disclosed through the Worldwide Disclosure Facility, and the story told there must match the US one.

Some practical overlap points:

• Foreign tax credits in the US returns rely on the UK figures being right. If a UK return is corrected, the US computation may move too.
• ISAs are tax-free in the UK but not for US purposes, and many ISA funds are PFICs. The preparation work for those funds is heavy, and the narrative should mention them by type.
• HMRC disclosure statements also ask about behaviour. Describing your conduct as careless to HMRC and non-wilful to the IRS is consistent; describing it as innocent to one and deliberate to the other is not.

HMRC's guidance on how to make a disclosure through the Worldwide Disclosure Facility explains the UK process. We prepare both sides together through our US and UK tax accountants so that the figures and the explanations line up.

What happens after the submission goes in?

Streamlined returns are processed like other returns and can still be selected for audit. If the certification holds, the reported amounts attract no failure-to-file, accuracy, information return or FBAR penalties, but interest is due on late tax. Evidence of wilfulness or fraud removes that protection entirely.

A few consequences are easy to miss. Penalties already assessed for the covered years are not abated. If the amended returns reach years beyond the normal assessment period, seeking a refund of tax paid for those years forfeits the streamlined terms. Form 14653 also commits you to keep records of your foreign accounts for six years from the date of certification, and to provide them on request. Most clients then move straight into annual compliance, which our high net worth tax team handles alongside the UK return each year.

Speak to us in confidence

If you work in London financial services and suspect your US filings are behind, the narrative deserves as much care as the returns. We prepare the full streamlined submission, the FBARs, Forms 8938 and PFIC schedules, and test the statement of facts against your documents before you sign it. To arrange a confidential consultation, contact our cross-border team.