New Law Requiring Businesses To Report Who Owns Them Is Put on Hold Again

The implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act -- a law aimed at getting shell companies to disclose their true ownership -- was paused again just days before a reporting deadline was set to take effect, as a federal appeals court handed the case to a panel for further consideration. From a report: In a court filing late Thursday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a stay on a national injunction the court had issued Monday that reinstated the Jan. 1 reporting deadline for millions of companies. The lifting of the stay means the January filing deadline will be postponed once again and bars the government and the Treasury Department from enforcing the law, pending oral arguments before the court's so-called merits panel, a group of judges tasked with considering appeals.

The Corporate Transparency Act, a bipartisan law passed in 2021 to curtail the use of anonymous shell companies and help track flows of illicit money, would require companies to file beneficial ownership information with the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or face the possibility of penalties such as fines and jail time. The law could cover more than 32 million small businesses nationwide.

Re:the law does not apply to most businesses

[mysidia]

These are frivolous arguments from a known uncredible source. Dave Champion, Ph.D makes claims that have been disproven in federal court, As in they have already been charged and found guilty of purveying frivolous arguments about the US government's authority in regards to taxation which amounted to fraud.

Re:the law does not apply to most businesses

[quonset]

The guy's an idiot. Congress is granted all powers necessary to execute a list of enumerated powers, and all others powers vested in the Constitution. It's literally the words of Article 1, Section 9:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Even in Section 8 there is this part:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

What does he think this bill is trying to do, bake a cake?

There is no distinction between territorial or subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has jurisdiction to make any law it deems necessary. Only the courts can decide if a) the law is unconstitutional or b) the width of the law (who it applies to or in what case). Congress routinely makes laws about corporate governance, so why would this be any different? He reminds me of those "sovereign citizen" morons who think the laws of the country don't apply to them. For those curious, the entire bill [congress.gov] for your reading pleasure.

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

The guy quoted is dangerous to follow the advice of, but Corporate Regulation is a state power under the Constitution. He is not even making the right argument.

Among the States means just that - preventing States from tariffing each other or like PA is trying to do with requiring a food permit for any tractor trailer with food on it traveling through the State, etc.

It definitely did not mean regulating every business in every state when the Constitution was ratified. That's easy to verify. Treating the cl

Re:

[worldthinker]

Every business has to file federal forms and many businesses are directly regulated by federal agencies. Departments such as Transportation, health, CDC, Commerce, and agriculture all create federal oversight of commerce and safety. I'm really tired of people tearing down the federal government as if it doesn't have legitimacy. You literally live in a country called the United States of America.

Re:

[swillden]

It definitely did not mean regulating every business in every state when the Constitution was ratified

There was very little interstate commerce when the Constitution was ratified. Most goods tended not to move more than a few miles, with some notable exceptions, things that could only be produced in one region and had enough value to justify transporting them long distances by wagon or ship. Railroads, highways and airplanes have change that pretty dramatically, and the Internet and the information age have changed it further. All corporations of any significant size are multi-state. Most businesses are inv

Re:

[mysidia]

The guy's an idiot. Congress is granted all powers necessary to execute a list of enumerated powers

That's being generous.. In reality; they are an author who has written books, and they probably know well exactly what they're doing and that would them a sheister. I believe this is classified as deliberate efforts to deceive the gullible and profit off it.

There's already federal orders [justice.gov] barring them from promoting their scam which amounted to promoting a fraudulent tax evasion scheme through their works w

I own 3 businesses

[trelanexiph]

Yep, I am an evil money-hoarding decadent capitalist pig. This law has a serious problem. If you are a small business owner, you may not even know about it. I have incorporations with 2 Secretaries of State, and 3 Employee Identification Numbers from the IRS. They know how to get ahold of me, but havenâ(TM)t. No other business owner I know has been contacted either. The penalty for not filing is $500/day. Missing even a few weeks could cause a family run business to miss payroll and fold. They have never been told. I have, of course, filled out the Beneficial Owner Information paperwork for all 3 of my companies. This law is going to screw innocent family businesses but no one cares.

Re:

[ZipNada]

I was contacted. I filled out the form and sent it in, maybe you should just do that.

Re:

[Xarius]

Small family businesses that meet certain criteria (e.g., fewer than 20 employees, under $5 million in revenue) and have no foreign ownership or control may not be subject to the CTA’s reporting requirements.

Re:

[StormReaver]

Xarius, you have it backwards. Any company meeting or exceeding those requirements is exempt. Everyone else must report. For me, the hassle and intrusions are just not worth it for the little bit of money I make. I'm going to close my LLC and just operate as a sole proprietor.

Re:

[Anachronous Coward]

I only heard about it from my accountant, who wanted to charge his clients about 500 bucks each to file it for them. I said no thanks, and when I finally tracked it down online (easily) it took me five minutes to fill it out. It gave them no more information than they already had. Extremely stupid.

Re:

[Applehu Akbar]

Who owns the senators, congressmen, potus, judges, etc.?

I think it's either Raytheon or one of the hedge funds.

disclose their true ownership

[ZipNada]

Totally appropriate. Sorry but you shouldn't be able to hide the ownership of your company behind a few convenient shells and launder your criminal money. Or present yourself as a legitimate company that is doing harm and hiding the real directors.

Re:

[mysidia]

Sorry but you shouldn't be able to hide the ownership of your company behind a few convenient shells and launder your criminal money

This law does Not do anything about that. Large corporations are effectively exempted to begin with - this attempted unconstitutional act essentially only applies to the ownership of small business entities.

The real criminals will have their US-based entity owned by an overseas trust not registered with anyone and is not subject to the CTA, thus you will have no idea who is b

Re: disclose their true ownership

[too2late]

Large companies (AKA public companies) are already forced to report this. They are a public company. Their ownership is known. The problem comes when A LLC is owned by B LLC which is owned by C LLC which is owned by China Inc. I agree with the intent of the law. However, like always, the government is screwing it up. There is no need for Mom and Pop LLC to have to fill out any forms. The owners' names are already recorded with their state corporation commission and you can look it up on the state's website.

If you think it's tough to get THIS law in place..

[tiqui]

just imagine how hard it would be to get a law up and enforced that would tell us who owns the politicians and the bureaucrats and the agencies.

Exhibit A

[timeOday]

Bezos has recently been an interesting example of why shell companies exist. He's getting sued by a Brazilian toy company founder, Leo Kryss, who sold Bezos a mansion. Kryss bought the place for $28M in 2014 and sold it to Bezos for $79M recently. The problem is, Bezos bought it through a company presumably to hide his identity, which evidently was a shrewd move because Kryss is now suing on the premise that if he'd known it was really Bezos, he could have gouged him for a lot more money. That's the pr

Re:

[Samare]

Poor Bezos, that's a really good reason to not implement this law!

Every so often we spot who really runs the world

[Bruce66423]

This is a classic example; obviously the real players found this legislation to be a problem, so it's being suppressed. Other examples include giving taxis the right to use bus lanes...

One problem: the site doesn't work

[Applehu Akbar]

As a corporate officer, I'm supposed to file one of these. The only way to do so is online. My first attempt was rejected because it claimed it couldn't identify me as a person, even using Real ID, and my second attempt pt was rejected because it couldn't identify my corporation - from its EIN, which is what I use every year to file corporate taxes.

This is the first time FINCEN, an agency whose remit is banking fraud and money laundering, has had to deal with individuals. Clearly it has some technical catch