Government: We need you to fill out a form of information we already have access to.
It doesn’t get any more red tape than this.
If it does, I’ll dot my i’s and cross my t’s like I have done for everything else in my business.
But until it gets overturned…I’m waiting.
I thought red tape referred to complicated and costly procedures in order to hinder someone from completing their request.
Something can be red tape without the cost being exorbitant.
You’re right, I should have said “complicated OR costly procedure” instead of “and.” However, that distinction doesn’t change the core point: filing is neither, and therefore, by definition, wouldn’t be considered red tape.
As we’ve both noted, the information is already available to both the government and the public… if they wanted to find it they could. This isn’t likely to affect any legitimate small business owner. I’m all for “sticking it to the man” when applicable, but the defiance and hesitation I’m seeing from people in this scenario just doesn’t seem justified. The CTA was put into effect in 2021, this just expands the reporting to include all entities doing business.
You changed your definition. 
But it’s ok for us to disagree.
Not worth dividing over.
Though to be clear, I’m not being defiant. Defiant would be refusing to fill it out if required by law. It currently is not required by law. If/when it is, I’ll fill it out.
When did I change the definition or say you were being defiant?
It has also been required by law to file since the beginning of the year, if the Texas injunction doesn’t get appealed, it will only apply to the 6 companies named, which I’m guessing you aren’t one of?
My main complaint is that they could have easily excluded companies making less than say $250k a year. Who is more likely to engage in the activities that this rule was made for: the companies with the ability to facilitate the transfer of illegal funds to terrorists and drug lords or some and mom and pop 100k LLC? Besides, the companies that this doesn’t affect, such as large financial institutions, have been caught numerous times laundering and transferring funds. They already know who runs them and the names of the board.
It’s just another government bureaucratic move.
bureaucratic
concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense.
They already have several large government alphabet agencies that can track that.
The website literally says “reporting companies are not currently required to file a BOIR”
Agreed, if they got rid of the 23 exempt classifications it would make sense… but those who have the money make the rules we play by.
One flaw, that is a federal court and the federal court system allows for joinder, which means other parties can join that case.
Clarification that doesn’t introduce new information or modify the original statement’s scope, intent, or tone does not alter a definition. I digress though as we are starting to get into the semantics of words and thats not the point of this thread.
The main concern I’ve heard from people (in general, not specifically directed at you) about this law is the fear of personal data being exposed. I understand that concern from a security perspective - especially in certain industries (hello, UnitedHealthCare) - where there could be conflicts or sensitive information. But for most small businesses, including ours, I don’t see this as a “hill to die on” when it comes to withholding information. Especially since in today’s world, it’s incredibly easy for anyone to find information online if they want to.
The only truly valid counterpoint I’ve heard people say is what @Dirtyboy reiterated: but this law doesn’t seem to benefit or harm us directly. Could it create a small barrier for the $99 fly-by-night operators? That might be a benefit for us… but most of them are already sidestepping regulations, so I don’t think this law is going to change that. In the grand scheme, there are much bigger issues to deal with than small businesses just trying to get by month-to-month.
It kind of reminds me of the people who, after seeing tech experts cover their webcams, decided to do the same - thinking their lives were so important that someone might be spying on them while they’re sitting on the couch watching Netflix.
In order to qualify as a joinder don’t you have to also have a legal claim against the party?
I’m not an attorney, but the claim would be that it is unconstitutional. Therefore, any jane, ■■■■, or harry could potentially file. Once again, without a whole lot of due diligence (boring reading of law books) I cannot provide an answer just throwing a dart. To me, especially when they reference the biggest power grab in U.S. history (the Interstate commerce clause), I know it is just another federal government grab for more control.
Here are some tidbits from the ruling
The court, calling the CTA “quasi-Orwellian,” found that the legislation “is likely unconstitutional as outside of Congress’s power.” It further found that “because the reporting rule implements the CTA, it likely is unconstitutional for the same reasons.”
The government argued that Congress has the power to enact the CTA under the Commerce Clause and under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Regarding the Commerce Clause, the court stated, “The CTA is a law enforcement tool — not an instrument calibrated to protect commerce; an exercise of police power, rather than a regulation of an activity which might impair commerce among the several states. This the Commerce Clause will not tolerate.”
The government also claimed that Congress had the authority to pass the CTA because of its broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs and pertaining to national security.
The court disagreed, saying, “The CTA, by its very language, does not regulate any issue of foreign affairs. It regulates a domestic issue: anonymous existence of companies registered to do business in a U.S. state and their potential conduct.”
The plaintiffs also argued that the CTA is unconstitutional under the First and Fourth amendments, but the court did not address those arguments.
Scope of order
The largest plaintiff in the case is the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which has about 300,000 members. The government argued that if the court enjoined the CTA and reporting rule to cover those members, the effect would be a nationwide injunction. The court agreed with the government’s point and noted the controversy around nationwide injunctions. However, the court concluded that, given the extent of the constitutional violation shown by the plaintiffs, the injunction should apply nationwide.
It always starts small…just file a form. In 2-5 years the cost of keeping track of these forms will cause them to implement a fee for filing. That fee will increase over time, along with the required information to file. They will eventually make it so complex you will need an accountant to file it for you, or you will have to buy special software to do it. This is the nature of bureaucratic systems. 700 managers, 1400 supervisors, 300 executives, and 200 workers. All paid for by the taxpayer. Oh yeah, the managers and executives will all be friends with or donators to some senator or representative. That is how it works.
Thats my understanding… unlike a class action where you’re simply notified and can ‘opt-in’ to the lawsuit, their is more work and cost involved to become a Permissive Joinder. Mainly filing a plea and obtaining court approval. I don’t know how hard the court will make it to get approval or how much it will cost to file… but I don’t see many Jane, ■■■■, or Harry’s pursuing this option due to the legwork and cost involved in hiring legal advisors without a guarantee of getting accepted. I also find it interesting that every source I’ve seen is still advocating people to be prepared to file. I’m envisioning the court ruling coming on December 30th or 31st and with everyone now in a rush to file the website crashes from all the traffic and people miss the deadline (maybe what the government is hoping for anyways)… hopefully I’m wrong about that, but if I’m not hopefully they are lenient with the penalties for failure to file over the past 12 months.
In NJ, every business has to file an Annual Report, which costs $75. Up until recently it cost $50.
Basically the same information as the BOI/FINCEN is requesting.
The state makes out like a bandit on it. $75 x 953,000 businesses registered in the state = $71,475,000.
They know what they’re doing. I’d put money on it that BOI/FINCEN is going to turn into a cash grab at some point.
2 Likes
Geez, I can’t believe they only charge $75. I’m sure it will go up next year.
In PA you are supposed to get a contractor number from the AG’s office, file paperwork and pay $50 every 2 yrs. Waiting for that to go up and be yearly. Allegedly it is to keep the fly by night contractors and the illegal crews from operating, and let the homeowner know if the contractor has legal issues. The bad ones just get new names every 2 years, totally worthless.
The filing requirement is back on with a deadline of March 21st.
1 Like
