I have better things to do with my 15 minutes than give the Feds information that they already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Printable View
I have better things to do with my 15 minutes than give the Feds information that they already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Don't you run a business?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
You're already spending more time than that giving them information they already have on a regular basis.
And yes, I also find it exceptionally annoying, particularly when I get fined for falling to report to department B what I already reported to A and C.
Yes, I do. Hence my observation.
Thoughts on whether I have to report since I'm on my HOA board? Seems ridiculous but I'm being told that I do (if its upheld).
Exactly! I'm not even being conspiratorial here. They literally have all this info so clearly we're not hiding anything. It's simply a bureaucratic waste of our time as far as I'm concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
Sent from my Pixel 8 using TGR Forums mobile app
I put nothing in writing and do nothing. If they're at the point of enforcement reaching HOAs, they better have cleaned up all for-profit money laundering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woolly the Mammoth
Trump administration scraps mandate for most businesses, vows new rule
Millions of small businesses were facing a March 21 deadline to report Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI), such as names and addresses of owners, as part of the Corporate Transparency Act passed by Congress in 2021 or face potential fines. The requirement, which was supposed to kick in Jan. 1, has been subject to a see-sawing set of court battles and decisions that have created a shifting set of guidelines and deadlines.
On March 2, the Treasury Department announced it would not enforce the upcoming deadline for any American-based small business, and will not enforce any penalties or fines for businesses that did not report that information. Instead, the Treasury Department will go back to the rule-making process, to "narrow the scope of the rule" to apply to foreign companies only.
The National Federation of Independent Business, which opposed the requirement, said in a statement it will continue to work to repeal the underlying law and that it would create a “vast new government database on Americans.”
Supporters of the law have said the information would be used by the Treasury Department and law enforcement to combat money laundering.
Small-business owners should now expect an interim rule that would, once again, extend the reporting deadlines as part of the process to craft new guidance. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which has overseen the implementation of the law, said it would also solicit public comment on potential revisions this year.
"FinCEN will consider those comments as part of a notice of proposed rulemaking anticipated to be issued later this year to minimize burden on small businesses while ensuring that BOI is highly useful to important national security, intelligence and law-enforcement activities, as well to determine what, if any, modifications to the deadlines referenced here should be considered," the agency said in a notice.
Timeline of the legal battle
The rule, long opposed by small-business groups, had been caught in legal limbo for months after the National Small Business Association and others challenged the law in court.
A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in early December issued a nationwide injunction to stay the original Jan. 1 deadline for businesses to report ownership information. A subsequent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned that injunction, which restored the requirement. Soon after, a separate panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit overturned the decision that lifted the injunction — which, once again, halted implementation of the rule.
The Supreme Court ultimately lifted the temporary injunction in Texas Top Cop Shop Inc. v. McHenry, but FinCEN said at the time the temporary injunction in the case Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury was preventing it from going forward with the rule. A judge later lifted that injunction as well, freeing up the agency to implement the rule.
What is the Corporate Transparency Act?
The Corporate Transparency Act is part of a larger effort by FinCEN to crack down on money laundering and other financial crimes.
It had required businesses with fewer than 20 employees to provide names, dates of birth, addresses and other identifying information about its owners. It applied to businesses with fewer than 20 employees founded or registered to do business in the United States.
Exemptions to the rule extended to larger operating companies with 20 or more full-time employees, more than $5 million in revenue and a physical operating presence in the United States, along with companies that report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, banks, registered broker-dealers, insurance companies and other businesses that already report ownership information to the government. It was not an annual requirement as business owners were only required to update their information if there was a change.
Unlike workplace regulations under former President Joe Biden that flowed from agency rule-making authority — efforts that have since been struck down in court — the reporting requirements are part of a law passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis in 2021. It has since become a focal point of opposition among some small-business groups.
A survey by information-services company Wolters Kluwer last year found 54% of businesses were awaiting the outcome of the injunction before deciding to file their report; 57% said they were prepared to file.
Boom times for money launderers.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
Seems unnecessary to me. The criminals will find a way around it, and the the legitimate businesses will be left with one more piece of red tape to deal with.
It was no big deal
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
You could say that exact same thing about every single regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
This one was particularly dumb tho. The Federal government quite literally already has all the info they were requesting here, so what's the point of making us do even one more pointless task, no matter how trivial it may seem?Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
I don't care if it would only take 5 minutes. It was entirely pointless, and was probably just some high level bureaucrat trying to justify their position. I've been in the Chair Force. I know these sorts. The absolute worst. lol
Sent from my Pixel 8 using TGR Forums mobile app
If bringing down the federal deficit is really a goal, we can either stop spending money, increase income by taxing those with a lot of money, or both. This law was a step in the direction of increasing income. Too many loopholes in the world today.
But sure, let’s just decrease the deficit by cutting $2T in spending and $4.5T in taxes. For all the math wizards out there, read up on the GOP reconciliation bill that the executive branch supports and tell me I’m reading it wrong. And please use the phrase “trickle down” in your explanation.
The issue is not whether they should have this information, the issue is whether they already have it and just need some 19 year old hacker and a couple of managers to connect 2 databases and do a search for taxpayer ID's to connect them.
It's one of the few clear recent examples of choosing an inefficient solution: assigning a little work to hundreds of thousands instead of a week's work to 2 or 3. Come on. We're supposed to be smarter than this.
Multimember LLCs have one tax payer ID. The feds do not collect the members names. Those are collected at the state secretary level. So if you mean a smart kid and couple managers aligning 50 SOS state databases with the feds, sure, sounds like our highly effective and efficient fed government could tackle that. Especially with Big Balls on the team.
And yet single member LLCs are identified explicitly on the 1040 as a Disregarded Entity and the TIN is provided right there beside the beneficial owner's SSN. Start there.
This isn't the worst mistake anyone ever made, but smart people are supposed to acknowledge mistakes and improve. Minor opportunity here, but still.
It’s all pretty moot at this point. Taxes will be going down for those who can afford them. Plenty of opportunity to dodge inheritance taxes through real estate trusts/LLCs and that will not change. I think part of the rule going away was not only looking for money laundering but inheritance tax opportunities.
Last sentence wasn’t clear and edit sucks. The rule was the first step in closing some loopholes. Shutting the rule says we’re not to interested in closing any loopholes.
A chunk of those loopholes could have been addressed a year ago just by querying the IRS. This is the kind of mistake that is seized upon and not entirely incorrectly: an adjustment in priorities could have improved this situation.
Nice...
Treasury Department Announces Suspension of Enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act Against U.S. Citizens and Domestic Reporting Companies
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0038
Hope all you government ass-kissers enjoyed wasting your time dicking around with the Fincen website. :D
Make Money Laundering Great Again
USA USA USA