punitive damages under Code § 7431(c)(l)(B)(ii), it would have so articulated. Instead, Congress directed that liability be found only upon a showing of bad faith and punitive damages only upon a showing of willfulness or gross negligence. The district court’s conclusion that Dr. Barrett faded to make the requisite showing for punitive damages is therefore not clearly erroneous. We thus decline to reverse on this ground. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM. 1 . These facts are substantially taken from the panel opinion in Barrett v. United States, 51 F.3d 475 (5th Cir.1995). 2 . See, e.g., Barrett v. United States, 917 F.Supp. 493 (S.D.Tex.1995) (denying actual and punitive damages, from which this appeal is taken); Barrett v. United States, 51 F.3d 475 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barrett, 837 F.2d 1341 (5th
holding a tribe subject to 1 a tax on the use of certain highway motor vehicles 26 usc  4481a 2 a tax on diesel fuel used in highway vehicles 26 usc  4041a 3 a tax on special fuels used in motor vehicles 26 usc  4041b and 4 a tax on manufacturing in this case a truck chassis assembled by the tribe 26 usc  4061a 4218a holding that disclosures of return information in circular letters mailed to plaintiffs patients violated 26 usc  6301 holding that presumption of regulari ty was rebutted where secretary could not show that va had mailed notice of bva decision and appellants letters appeared to reflect that he was seeking information regarding status of bva review thus indicating that he had not received that notice holding that information furnished to preparer of tax return is not privileged holding that intentional failure to file an information return is not a willful filing