Welcome back! Ask questions, get answers, and join our large community of tax professionals.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Ode to BOI/CTA

PATAX
Level 15

I shall not lie, with a smile I must say goodbye, to thee BOI, I shall not cry; What great news today, that I heard about CTA, a passing away, hooray hooray!

1 Best Answer

Accepted Solutions
sjrcpa
Level 15

Don't get too excited yet. As indicated in the thread I started, the gov't will most likely appeal.

The more I know, the more I don't know.

View solution in original post

27 Comments 27
sjrcpa
Level 15

Don't get too excited yet. As indicated in the thread I started, the gov't will most likely appeal.

The more I know, the more I don't know.
PATAX
Level 15

@sjrcpa Sue, this reminds me of the case years ago when they were going to subject non credential preparers to testing. Everyone thought it was a sure thing, until that group shocked everybody and had it stopped via a court victory. And it was upheld! I think the same thing is going to happen here. They are overstepping. 

sjrcpa
Level 15

We'll see, won't we?

The more I know, the more I don't know.
Jim-from-Ohio
Level 11

that would be incedible as I would have to go through my client list and let everyone know.. I know there is a query for Schedule C but it's not that easy.. some LLCs are schedule Es.. and on top of that all my regular entity returns. it would take my days.. non-billable time!. i hope this does indeed go way. 

BobKamman
Level 15

This does not remind me of a case involving an 1884 statute enacted during the Chester Arthur administration.  But I'll let the Department of Justice argue the appeal.  They'll win, but enjoy winning the battle before losing the war.  

PATAX
Level 15

@Jim-from-Ohio @sjrcpa @ironman Did you notice that in both aforementioned cases that the entities that brought forward the legal action ( that paid for the legal representation and/or volunteered for it) I believe both were apparently NON tax preparer organizations, IE they were not CPA organizations or EA organizations or tax professional organizations. Hmmmm.

IRonMaN
Level 15

Don't count your chickens before they fry.............. or is it before they cross the road..................oh - now I remember -------before they fly away.   Wait, wait, wait ------------------ don't count your chickens before they hatch.  If you are hoping for this thing to really die, you should be hoping the government uses the same lawyers that couldn't make the preparer regulation stick.  


Slava Ukraini!
PATAX
Level 15

@BobKamman come on Bob, don't be a party pooper!😀

PATAX
Level 15

I got all my country grown brown eggs counted and ready to fry, with some peppers and onions and cheese and home fries! My oh my it's going to be good!

BobKamman
Level 15

@PATAX  The plaintiff they hunted down in Huntsville is a real estate agent.  The organization paying for the litigation is headquartered in Ohio, but they're smart enough to know where to shop for a friendly judge.  Even, for a friendly circuit court of appeals.  But those judges will ignore how the newbie judge trying to make a name for himself goes on and on about the Commerce Clause, when that's not the peg the government hangs its hat on.  It's national security and foreign relations -- we have to do it in order to cooperate with other countries that are doing it -- and tax administration.  The plaintiffs even admitted that they would fail if the only reason was taxes.  The judge says, "you win if that's the only reason, but not if that's just one of the reasons."  Not too bright.  

Speaking of Chester Arthur, he was a much better President than historians rank him (of course, if you look at the ratings they released last week for Presidents Day, it sort of proves they have no credibility, but I digress).  Civil Service reform, the establishment of a modern navy, and the best sideburns around rank him in my top 15!

PATAX
Level 15

@BobKamman Bob if this was about National Security, then why didn't they do it before? I don't think little Grandma Jones antique store is a threat to National Security. This is all about control and overreach. They want to be involved with everything. Like the kind of light bulb they want you to use in your house, and the kind of car they want you to drive, and the kind of toilet they want you to flush, and the kind of septic tank system they want you to have, and I could go on and on and on.

sjrcpa
Level 15

@PATAX "IE they were not CPA organizations or EA organizations or tax professional organizations"

They probably wouldn't have had standing and the case would have been tossed out. Such as happened with a lot of the ACA cases.

The gov't did try to argue that NSBA did not have standing, but I guess (I haven't read the 53 page case yet)  the judge didn't agree. Tax Notes mentioned this in a write up about the case that they did about  year ago. It's behind a paywall so I'm not linking it.

The more I know, the more I don't know.
BobKamman
Level 15

@PATAX Well, they did it four years ago, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, better late than never.  And FinCen dates back to 1990, 

"FinCEN was created in 1990 to support federal, state, local, and international law enforcement by analyzing the information required under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), one of the nation's most important tools in the fight against money laundering. The BSA's recordkeeping and reporting requirements establish a financial trail for investigators to follow as they track criminals, their activities, and their assets. Over the years, FinCEN staff has developed its expertise in adding value to the information collected under the BSA by uncovering leads and exposing unknown pieces of information contained in the complexities of money laundering schemes."

All of those things you claim "they" are doing, required a majority of elected representatives to approve. And they could always have repealed them if they saw a problem.  I'm sorry you have to live in a democracy.  The Constitution does protect some minority rights, but Dobbs took away your right to privacy.

 

PATAX
Level 15

@sjrcpa yeah that makes sense. I'm celebrating with some apple pie and cold milk. 🤓🐕

PATAX
Level 15

@BobKamman an old time Democrat told me years ago there is sometimes the official reason that they tell you, and then the real reason. He was big in politics so he knew what he was talking about.  You can call me whatever you want, but that cynical Mediterranean and little bit of Hungarian Nobility, Ashkenazi, etc, in me tells me that I'm correct. Again I cannot prove this, but I am entitled to my opinion, at least for now.

IRonMaN
Level 15

@Frustrated-in-IL - If you want to know more about Chester’s sideburns, you might be in luck.  If I remember correctly, Bob mentioned that he was roommates with Chester back in his college days.


Slava Ukraini!
sjrcpa
Level 15

@PATAX We continue to have more things in common - fig growing, Ashkenazi.

The more I know, the more I don't know.
abctax55
Level 15

I dated a guy in college named after Chester Arthur.  Anybody know his middle name (the President, not the guy I dated... 🙂

WITHOUT googling it <w>

HumanKind... Be Both

Alan.

Did not google it.

@abctax55 :

Did the guy you date have cool sideburns?

abctax55
Level 15

h*((..... that was  decades ago, I don't remember.  Probably not as I don't think sideburns were *cool* in that decade.

Good job, you even got the spelling correct (Alan v Allen).

HumanKind... Be Both

Don't tell my clients but I know much more about history than I do taxes.

PATAX
Level 15

@sjrcpa you are right Sue. Got an email from another forum where apparently fincen has stated that this is only going to apply to those who were members of that organization as of 3/1/2024 that brought the lawsuit, I think they are called the NSBA or something like that. So if a business is not a member of that organization then apparently they are still subject to the CTA/BOI. People should do Google search on this and read it for themselves, as it's been a long day.

 

sjrcpa
Level 15

It was a FinCen News Release -  for the Googlers.

The more I know, the more I don't know.
Jim-from-Ohio
Level 11

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) urged the Treasury Department and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to delay enforcement actions relating to new beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements until after relevant pending litigation is resolved.

The AICPA was joined by state CPA societies in an April 3 letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki elevating "grave concerns" with a provision of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that created recordkeeping and report filing obligations for businesses to disclose information about their beneficial owners and company applicants.

Per a FinCEN BOI , the rules were put in place for national security purposes and are intended to prevent "illicit actors" from hiding assets or laundering money.

Effective January 1, 2024, businesses must supply names, birthdates, addresses, and unique identifying numbers and corresponding issuing jurisdictions. Existing companies have one year to file their initial reports, while newly registered entities have 30 days (unless the company is registered in 2024, in which case the deadline is 90 days).

That extra time for 2024 came from a FinCEN rule proposed last September. The AICPA previously recommended a more extensive grace period.

"To have a meaningful impact on small businesses, we recommend that FinCEN extend the deadline beyond the proposed 90 days to one year," the CPAs wrote in October . "Additionally, the scope of the proposed rulemaking should be expanded to include not only new entities created in 2024, but all entities created thereafter and entities making updates or corrections to their original filings."

The organization's latest letter comes on the heels of a recent ruling by the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in National Small Business Association v. Yellen (No. 5:22-CV-1448-LCB, 2024 WL 899372 ), where the court in a memorandum opinion issued March 1 found the CTA to be unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' authority. The court's final judgment enjoined the federal agencies from enforcing the CTA, but only against the named plaintiffs, the NSBA.

On March 11, the Justice Department filed its appeal . "While this litigation is ongoing, FinCEN will continue to implement the [CTA] as required by Congress, while complying with the court's order," FinCEN said in a press release. "Other than the particular individuals and entities subject to the court's injunction … reporting companies are still required to comply with the law and file beneficial ownership reports as provided in FinCEN's regulations."

According to the AICPA, the ruling has spurred confusion, with many entities believing they are no longer subject to the BOI requirements. With this in mind, the letter asked for the government to not issue civil or criminal penalties until one year after the matter's conclusion and not conduct any retroactive enforcement activities.

"The portal can remain open, and small businesses may voluntarily report BOI, but no small business should be compelled to file, nor should any small business face enforcement for failure to comply until after the courts have worked through this complex case," the AICPA said.

PATAX
Level 15

@Jim-from-Ohio Thanks for the update.