FinCEN now states that “reporting companies may continue to voluntarily file beneficial ownership information reports.”
getty
Earlier this week, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas cast doubt on the fate of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and blocked the U.S. Treasury Department from enforcing beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements across the state. did. country.
The US government is currently appealing the nationwide preliminary injunction, and FinCEN has withdrawn its position that the application should proceed.
Texas ruling
In Top Cop Shop of Texas, Inc., et al. v. Garland et al., Obama-appointed Judge Mazzant grants the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)’s request for a preliminary injunction, preventing the U.S. Treasury from enforcing CTA’s reporting requirements. I prevented it. Because the NFIB and its approximately 300,000 members were parties to the lawsuit, the judge blocked enforcement of the nationwide BOI reporting requirement.
In the lawsuit, the NFIB (Center for Individual Rights (CIR)), Texas Top Cop Shop, Data.com for Business, Mustard Seed Livestock, Russell Strayer, and the Mississippi Libertarian Party ) argued that the CTA was unconstitutional. Congress’ power over the states unreasonably compels speech, contradicts the right of anonymous association guaranteed by the First Amendment, and is unconstitutional. Fourth Amendment Mandating Disclosure of Personal Information.
In a 74-page decision, the court agreed: “Plaintiffs are legitimately concerned about this parallel, quasi-Orwellian statute and its impact on our nation’s system of dual governance.” did. Judge Mazan, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, wrote, “Despite attempts at every turn to harmonize the CTA with the Constitution, the government has no compelling theory that the CTA falls within the ambit of Congressional provisions.” cannot be provided to the court.” And despite the deference the courts must accord Congress, the CTA appears likely to be unconstitutional. ”
The Justice Department did not initially comment on the case, but an appeal was expected. That’s exactly what happened — this week, the government filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. It is unclear when any judgment will be handed down.
FinCEN responds
The question many people had after receiving the verdict was, “What will happen next?”
In response to the confusion, FinCEN posted a statement on its website saying, “The government continues to believe that the CTA is constitutional, consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon.” ”
However, FinCEN said, “While this litigation is ongoing, FinCEN will abide by the order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for as long as it remains in effect.”
In other words, the agency says, “Reporting companies are currently under no obligation to submit beneficiary information to FinCEN, and will not be held liable for failing to do so while the preliminary injunction remains in effect.” The agency added, “Reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficiary information reports.”
reporting requirements
CTA cast a wide net. A company that is legally required to report is called a reporting company. If the company is a corporation, limited liability company (LLC), or other business entity created by filing documents with the state, local, or federal government (or a foreign company registered to do business in the country) If so, the company may be a reporting company. United States)—some exceptions apply. These reports are submitted online to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). FinCEN expects to receive more than 32 million reports in the law’s first year in effect, which is 2024.
The law aims to make it harder for bad actors to hide their identities and ill-gotten gains through shell companies and opaque corporate structures, bringing companies and owners into the fold. The information required to be reported includes details about the owner, such as the name, date of birth, address, and scanned images of identification documents such as driver’s licenses and passports for each so-called “beneficiary.” Generally, the same information must be reported for the company’s applicant, i.e. the person who helped organize the company (most commonly the forming company or attorney).
That’s a lot of information. And companies were slow to react. FinCEN effectively opened its doors to reporting earlier this year, but only about 20%, or 6 million companies, have filed reports.
The penalties for non-compliance are severe. Anyone who knowingly violates reporting requirements may be subject to civil penalties of up to $500 for each day the violation continues, as well as criminal penalties of up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
court ruling
Months after the CTA was enacted, a federal court ruled it unconstitutional. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed on November 15, 2022 by National Small Business United (also known as the National Small Business Association, or NSBA) and Isaac Winkles. On March 1, 2024, U.S. District Judge Lyles C. Burke, Northeastern District of Alabama, ruled that the CTA is unconstitutional. “Congress sometimes enacts ill-advised laws that violate the Constitution,” Burke, a Trump appointee, said in his opinion. This case “exemplifies that principle,” he continued.
(You can read the judgment here.)
However, the National Small Business United decision prohibits the U.S. Treasury from enforcing the CTA against plaintiffs, but not against others. This is a major difference from the latest judgment. The government immediately appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit, which held oral arguments in October of this year (which can be heard here).
The Virginia decision referenced by FinCEN was the Oct. 24, 2024 decision in Association of Community Associations v. Yellen. In this case, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. On November 4, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Another court decision denied a motion for a preliminary injunction in a challenge action against the CTA. In Firestone v. Yellen, filed in Oregon, the court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success based on their argument that the CTA was unconstitutional. On November 18, 2024, plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Increasingly, it looks like this issue may end up being resolved in the Supreme Court. But for now, companies have a grace period.
