We have those laws it’s called Articles 1,2,3,6 and the 14th Amendment. But the American people have been taught that the Constitution only controls the people instead of controlling the Government as it was intended. See the 10th Amendment for the actual Authority Structure.
Even if everything was out in plain language, the vast majority of people would vote on team & aesthetics. Vibes over facts. Not because ppl are "idiots" or anything like that, rather not taught to focus on these issues. News were about sensetionalism for decades, social media made it even more.
@@TheOrangeRoad This is just another law to make it easier for the government to spy on its citizens. First was the FISA court, then collecting the numbers of the people we call, now it's how we invest the money. The information is there the government just wants to violate our 5th amendment rights by creating laws that make it easier for them to get the information
As soon as you realize that this bill only required businesses with under a certain amount of revenue ($10 million I think) to report this information, you immediately realize that it’s got nothing to do with preventing money laundering.
It has nothing to do with money laundering of the rich, it is designed to prevent small scale money laundering. Where do most taxes come from, it is not the rich that pay most of the taxes. This was only about making sure the middle class continue to pay the taxes so the rich don't have to by identifying middle class people that hold LLC's.
Most people have never heard of bank deposit structuring. To make sure money is not from illegal gain when you deposit more than $10,000 at a bank they have to report it to the US Treasury Department. Structuring is when you make multiple below the $10,000 threshold. Say you make several deposits of $7,000 , $8000, and $9000 in a month into a bank account. This look suspicious therefore the bank reports you to the US Treasury Department. I've heard stories of small business owners having their accounts frozen because they thought they were trying to evade money laundering. Turns out the small business owners were not trying to hide anything they were just making deposits based on their cash flow not wanting to keep too much on hand at the business.
Exactly. When you start a business, your deposits may average $1k. As your business grows, the deposits grow. To $3k, $5k, then $7k. Next it grows to $9k, and suddenly you show up on the government's radar as a suspicious money launderer. Never mind that literally _every_ small business goes through this phase once they grow big enough.
Yes, if you deposit over $10,000 that is suspicious. and if you deposit less than $10,000 that is also suspicious. Depositing money into you r account is suspicious.
@@twentyfiveyears5010 of course it is, being self sufficient is suspicious. You should only live off the government teet, and be a serf to the elites. How dare you step out of line.
@@Michigan_farmboy correct, but banks will also look at other things and make their own determinations and make suspicious activity reports. I had to deal with it when father passed away and his estate paid me out from multiple accounts.
The proposed law did nothing to prevent money laundering and everything to crush small business owners. If you once had a LLC that you set up to start a business, but life got in the way, and you have ZERO income flowing through the LLC, and you didn't file the paperwork on the LLC, with zero income, you would face a DAILY penalty of $591 plus the potential of a two year prison sentence and be a labeled a felon. Oh, if your LLC does more than $5 million in revenue, you don't have to file and don't have to face the penalties or potential jail time. If you have a bunch of members of the LLC, then you don't have to comply with the law. It literally only targets very small companies, regardless of how little revenue is generated.
Ah, that makes it make more sense to me. Allowing the wealthy to continue their corruption, while making sure that little guys never get to that point.
They didn't even bother to grandfather older businesses or send formal notification to anyone. The enforcement threats are completely inappropriate. It simply has to be unconstitutional.
I didn’t realize that financial institutions were exempt. Why in the world should that be? That’s where most of the financial crimes like money laundering happen. Who’s covering up for whom? 🤔
Most financial institutions are publicly traded. The ownership is not hidden. Small businesses are where the easier money laundering takes place. Dry Cleaners. Bars. Comic Book Stores, etc...
US Bank has to close a branch who's employees questioned, withheld and reported interstate death insurance proceeds as "suspect". They then delayed both deposit and subsequent large withdrawal for 14 days to confirm funds were legit and "educate" the depositer on how to pay a contractor. A year later another large settlement check was received and again blocked for 8 days. Bad invasive business practices defying established laws, rules and procedures.
While U agree with the idea that they should not be exempt if such a law manages to remain legal, I strenuously object to your unsupported and confident declaration that most financial crimes are committed by such relatively few organizations. Where are your stats? Where's your sound logic? Pointing out your hate and disgust for an industry doesn't count - you need data. Data, not anecdotes.
I call it "tax avoidance," but the IRS called it "tax evasion." It is really just semantics. The issue did grow, and is growing, to the point tax collection and circumvention, avoidance and evasion are fields of study in themselves. Another thought is that college degrees are college degrees and professional certifications are available in medical insurance billing. Prefect, another arms race. I am hoping to establish a PhD program in mind masterbation. Oh wait, that exists already, in every field of human endeavor.
Not if the uber rich get their way..."Its tax avoidance when WE do it, but tax evasion when you do it..." Stay in your dingy peasant! Those yachts are mine!!!" Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out!!!
So if u deposit your check.u can be charged with structureing..think for a change don't say different your not really that stupid. A hundred million ppl deposit less than 10grand every week 😅😅😅😅 a million small businessed deposit less than that every day. This is overreach ..they could charge you Fool under this law ..
I started a small - very, very small - LLC when I retired 10 years ago. I am owner, president and janitor. The LLC typically earns less than $8,000 per year. I have screwed around trying to fill out their damn form for a couple of days, and it has me totally befuddled. There should be some sort of exemption for simple situations.
Its not about as many as possible.. just a few to set an example and then to control whos allowed to benefit from a company.. its called communism and people don't comprehend it
One thing I wished you would have covered is why is it only in the 11th hour the courts are now getting involved? The law was passed in 2021. Nothing could have been worked out between then and now? I would have guessed there would have been lawsuits filed day 1 in 2021.
Law Makers pass unconstitutional laws all the time as it takes time to have courts over turn them. Law Makers have lawyers to give them all this breakdown. Often bills are written by billionaires or corporations to target destruction of rights and new business formation. Sooner or later every law will stand against you unless you can afford to go to court to fight every unconstitutional law targeting you. There will be no blanket overturning of laws, it will only be case by case.
Lawsuits were probably filed almost immediately, but this was an appeals court ruling. It went to court, there was some sort of judgement there, and then either that judgement or some aspect of the trial was appealed, and that's what this case was about. This injunction is happening now because the process has gone at the typical slow pace and it was about to come into effect.
As a small business owner, small as in me, I think it is an overreaching and misguided law. I am expected to comply but financial institutions are exempt. Which one commits more financial crimes? I don't really care if anyone knows who owns my business but they require a lot more information than just my name and address. The fine schedule is also absurd, I think it was created to be a revenue source.
Same here. The threat of the fines for me but not others was absurd. I didn't even have to file for an LLC but I chose to take the most legal pathway I could and as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
It was simply drafted by insanely rich people, to ensure they don't see someone like you at their yacht brokers office...Whenever someone gets a little "too rich for their liking", they will simply sick the feds on them to drain their wealth...They cant be allowing some paltry millionaire to turn it into billions, now, can they...?
Unconstitutional, how? A Company and Corporate Entity is not an american citizen, and thus not protected by the bill of rights. Only CITIZENS are Protected by the Bill of Rights. If a company or corporation was considered a Citizen and thus Protected by the Bill of Rights, then they are commiting Slavery and Violating the Bill of Rights, as they would have the right to not be slaves, but companies can be bought and owned by citizens and other companies. You can't have the cake AND eat it too. Either they are protected and thus can not have companies own other companies and MUST be owned by a citizen that is the True Creator/Owner, or they do NOT have rights and protections, and thus NOTHING can be concidered 'Unconstitutional' cause they have no rights are Companies and Businesses.
The problem with the CTA is it unfairly and unjustly targets small mom and pop and freelancer LLCs typically with just one or two members, who are unlikely to engage in any money laundering or other financial crimes. It also exempts larger entities > $5 million revenue, OR entities with owners holding less than 25% - so, you could have a 5+ member LLC that is exempt too - just the entities that are more likely to engage in crimes. The worst part is the penalties for not filing or filing late - $591/day (max $10k) plus TWO years in the federal pen. Those level of penalties don't even exist for tax returns, unless in the extreme. I hope the law is struck down permanently next year.
@@chrisguli2865 it’s specifically to go after mom and pop shops to fine them into oblivion because they handle their own taxes and had no idea this law went into effect who wants to bet?
@@chrisguli2865 The first time I looked at this I laughed at the fact that the exempt people are exactly the ones we keep seeing break the laws. I assume they are also the biggest political donors.
If you're a big enough boy to create an LLC, which offers significant protections for the creators in the form of the "corporate veil", you're a big enough boy to do the paperwork. Especially since corporations have had paperwork and bookkeeping requirements long before this. Enough of this worshiping at the alter of small business. 9 times out of 10 when you see a company pulling some beyond-the-pale labor violation, law violation, customer attack, etc, its a small business. In my experience, they're often run by people who don't work well with others, so forgive me if I don't shed a tear for tinpot tyrants who have to fill out a form and lick a stamp.
If they really want to stop money laundering, they should shut down all these celebrity and political non-profits. Gone are the days where a charity does something. Now it just lines the pockets of the heads of the charity. You donate to mine and get a tax benefit, and I'll donate to yours for a tax benefit so that we get tax free money that has been laundered clean.
Did you see the one about an eighth grader paying for lunch with a 2 dollar bill and then charged with a felony. It's a good thing there is still elderly ppl. living to remember the past.
I just read the story you mentioned. What a complete waste of taxpayer dollars by bumbling idiots. More importantly the young lady now has this trauma to deal with. 8th grade is tough enough age bracket. Unbelievable. They likely could have brought it to a bank to verify in a couple hours.
There were never any charges filed in that case. It’s not that they didn’t know about $2 bills, they were concerned it was counterfeit because it didn’t react as expected with that pen they use to test bills. They determined it was real later that day.
I wonder how this law will affect the Hollywood practice of paying a shell company all their profits so they can claim a movie made zero profit and avoid paying actors and directors their cut.
The worst thing is, they NEVER notified corporations of this NEW requirement... which carries penalties including $10,000 fine + $580 per day + 2 years in prison. NO OFFICIAL NOTICE. I heard about it on UA-cam. Steve, do you suppose they will _notify_ people of those fines? Yeah. I think they might.
I wonder if the writers of the US Constitution EVER IN THEIR LIVES thought, or even dreamed, that businesses would be guaranteed the same 'rights' as individual citizens.
Corporations were a recent thing at that time, I understand created to deal with the problems of family-owned banks. But they were very far from common, and watched like a hawk!
In America, you have to have over a million in assets and a record of over 200k income before you can buy a $40 share in a company not traded on a stock exchange. Designed to keep the little guy from helping another little guy cut into the big guy's profits.
Yep, I'd just formed my LLC and was told I had 90 days to file. It was incredibly invasive and I was 100% uncomfortable with doing it but like you said, there were threats of big fines for not complying.
Actually, only 30% or so already have. I personally haven't, as I am waiting on the decision of this rule. I really don't think that this rule will be beneficial to anyone and that catching actual money launderers will be so few that this law would not have been necessary. I feel it's just another attempt of big government to wedge their way into small businesses in our country.
@@tradingmedic they fell prey to the fear-shame on them. i’ve been watching this very closely because my little granddaughter is involved in my business and I don’t want them having her information at this point.
I've seen this. LLC owned by a trust makes it difficult to find who owns the actual business. Rockefeller family owns GE. They bought it from Edison in the 1950s. If you try to look up GE today it will only give the name of the CEO & not the owners. This is because it's under a trust managed by a trustee/CEO.
There should be a specific reason to go looking. Not a fishing expedition. If there is reasonable cause to get the appropriate authorities, e.g. Warrants, Subpoenas, etc etc.
So, I watched and waited most of 2024 to see if the injunction would prevail before filing the BOI. It was lifted late in the year so I went ahead and filed to be compliant. Now at the last minute its in force again. If this law ultimately fails what will happen to all of the data the feds have already collected?
@@Golfnut_2099 yes but there is that HUGE middle ground of private companies over 5 million revenue with no oversight. Sure S&P and blue chips are watched closely but that is a small minority.
@@chrisguli2865 I have not looked at the rules. I just know that larger companies, especially publicly traded companies, have other reporting requirements. Where is most of the fraud? It is smaller companies that are privately owned.
Mr. Lehto, Enron might not be the best example here: Enron would have been exempted under the CTA-BOIR requirement - Enron had assets over $5-Million and was a fiduciary entity that also would have been exempted; thus, Enron would never have been on the FINCEN radar.
The way this is done im my eastern European home country, companies need to publicly disclose their beneficiaries in order to receive any government money. That covers government contracts, subsidies and similar. The idea is that you're entitled to keep that information private, and the government is entitled to decline to do business with you in that case. Now, obviously it's not a silver bullet and there are ways to work around it. But it has been surprisingly difficult to work around while also not breaking any law. When people try to do it, at some point they end up lying to the court about who receives the end benefits, and if they're found out, they get in trouble. I wonder if that approach would be constitutional in the US.
This has nothing to do with government funded anything.. lmfao wow. Amazing how you literally think this is for businesses who receive money from government.. when its nothing to do with tax payer loans or anything.. they want to know who's getting what so they can control who gets to keep their business moving forward.. gee communism isn't hard to comprehend yet you people think America is free 😂
@@jeremycable51 Yes, that will always be a problem. The companies can just lie, and unless someone actually checks, the whole system is meaningless. Here it's done by a court, you need to submit the information to a judge and you get a certificate back. Surprisingly it works well enough, a judge is more capable of finding the truth than a random government worker. Involving judges also means if you want to workaround this, you will end up lying to the court, which is a nice bonus because it makes the risk high for the cheaters.
Nice! I think that would in fact work, here, too! I'll take that up with my Representative, since the House controls the origination and approval of all Federal contracts.
@@davidgoodnow269 In nearly 25 years, not a single contract that I have worked has been sent to the House of Representatives for approval. None. The entity who receives appropriations is responsible for the solicitation of bids/proposals and the award of contracts through their respective contracting offices.
As someone who routinely has to pick my way through webs of interconnected LLCs to track down responsible parties, I am very much in favor of this legislation. Waaaay too many dirtbags hiding behind DE laws.
Actually, I received a statement recently for my newly formed LLC that the only people that are exmpt from filing right now are those 13,000 in that suit the rest of us still have to file that form or face penalties.
Not only is this law a massive invasion of privacy but it is a blatent example of how special interest lobbying has resulted in the law including not just a couple but 23 exemptions where you don't have to file. For example... have more than 20 employees or $5M in revenue? don't need to file. You're a VC fund or insurance "fund"? no need to file. So not only is it a huge invasion of privacy but it by definition doesn't make the disclosure requirement equal across all business entities. Exactly what we've learned to expect from Yellen's crony corruption. Good riddance.
Definitely needs to be investigation. "Enforcement" is a funny use according to SCOTUS. The word kind of implies preventing crime, which they technically law enforcement cannot, rather just attempt deterrence...
This is not coming from small businesses. Small businesses typically don't layer LLCs like this. Large businesses and criminal enterprises do (not much difference between the two, if you ask me).
Unless the business is involved in interstate commerce, then the fed can regulate it. The problem is, the fed has stretched interstate commerce beyond reason. A restaurant that only exists in one state and buys from a distributor that has a warehouse in that state is certainly not engaged in interstate commerce in my opinion but the fed has been able to get around this.
3:35 It is the government we are talking about. "Crime Enforcement" is accurate. They have to maintain a certain level of crime which maintains a certain level of fear to justify what they are doing.
Federal judges are appointed by governors or presidents. They are usually very pro corporate local judges or corporate lawyers that are selected into those positions.
I think the idea of identifying the beneficial owners of companies is a good idea… but I fail to see how threatening every soccer mom with an Etsy shop does anything to help prevent nefarious shell-company-ception from occurring in Delaware. I ended up closing my small business in part because I found the reporting requirements too burdensome. My tiny hobby business was simply not worth the legal liability of accidentally mis-reporting something and being buried in fines.
So another way to execute Unconstitutional seizures of assets to enrich the pockets of gouvernment and federal agencys The problem being when used against small enterprises they havent the financial ability to mount a legal challenge without damaging their bussines But well backed enterprises (including those laundering money for illegal operations) have the finances to run legal rings around the charges !
Good. Warrantless monitoring of all customers, accounts, and transactions by the federal government to detect crime (either directly or through laws forcing banks to do them) might be effective, but it makes a complete mockery of the 4th Amendment.
it'd effective to cherry pick who they want to go after. like the irs does now. audits are also unconstitutional for the same reason. "we don't like how that looks. it's not against the law but it's a red flag. now prove you are innocent of our suspicions by showing all receipts and money transfers. mmm ok you might be innocent sigh". completely unconstitutional.
The laws are not effective except as a system of tracking and controlling ordinary people, to the benefit of big business and big government but to the detriment of "we the people ".
You're making a mockery out of 4th amendment. incorporation is privilege, not a right. incorporation is a gift from the public. Corporations are not people. Period. Your next mistake is take some time to learn about 'Patent Trolls', good luck trying to find the owners of multibillion dollar business who creates nothing, with no value added to society, who makes a living off suing other small business out of business using the US justice system as a means of extortion.
Thank you for bring attention to this I run a small business and saw this and immediately thought that it was a 4th & 5th amendment. There was almost no info on this a month ago.
Damn right, dont want every person you ever met at your doorstep asking for a hand out. Cutting checks to friends and family trying to be nice is part of how many of those winners end up broke in 5 years.
I have $14 million in $100 bills buried under my kitchen floor. I am baffled as to what to do with it. It’s gonna be a hell of a job to dig it up in the first place. Then, how do you get some good out of All those nice crisp hundred dollar bills? You can’t just go buy a house with them or a car or something. I was sure hoping you would give me some ideas as to how to proceed.
@@baldilocksmcfedders6335 the comment was initially about another consequential judgement that has shaped life as we know it and is worth highlighting. Is that okay with you?
Thank you. I received an email about this and was so confused. We're an HOA and I am the current board president. The info was wrong for the property and they were trying to imply I was the beneficial owner. I'm not opposed to finding out who actually owns things, but this is clearly not ready for roll out.
Same here. The management company said they can't/won't fill it out because of the liability. I'm thinking of finishing a few projects and resigning. Does this affect us as hoa volunteers?
They didn't like that they didn't have ultimate power and information to destroy small business owners who disobeyed during COVID. That's literally what all of this is about.
It’s literally about COVID? Is that still a thing 😂. Also when are we allowed to disobey government regulations and which ones because you seem to think it’s fine to do so. There are many regulations, laws and agencies I would love to give the finger to.
@ yes, that’s what money laundering does. It’s cleaning up the money gained through criminal activity through “legal” businesses and depositing and investing it in our financial system. This is nothing new, it’s a practice perfected by the mafia. Drug dealers don’t go to the bank with $10K weekly deposits.
@@x--. I really believe I don't care and your don't take the rights of law abiding citizens away just to catch the few criminals. Those same criminals you mention hide evidence and do business out of their homes and could easily be found out if law enforcement officers could barge in and search their house without warrants so are we willing to say that law enforcement can now search everyone's private property without a warrant to make it easier to catch the few criminals in society? Yes that's an exaggeration but that's what laws like this boil down to and it's a symptom of society giving in to the fear of certain criminals getting away with something and being willing to give up their rights to avoid that without realizing they are also giving up everyone else's rights by going asking with it. It goes to the fallacy of "if you don't break the law you have nothing to worry about" making something ok but that's not what this country or our justice system were founded on. 😊
Holding companies have ben around for many, many years. I emailed this to you about a month ago when the Texas court ruled, I'm glad you finally did this video. Thank you.
A terrible law, massive government overreach and ultimately the information will end up being abused in every way possible, not unlike civil asset forfeiture.
After a discussion with my CPA, I decided to close my LLC before the end of the year to avoid the filing requirement. I had not done any work under that company in five years so this decision made sense. I live in Missouri. So because of the Secretary of State of Missouri rules I was required to pay $50 for them to accept and file the applications. It was set up as two different applications with a $25 fee for each. Here is what got me --THERE WAS NO NOTICE SENT TO ME ABOUT THIS REQUIREMENT.-- I believe that many many legitimate LLCs will be caught off guard because of no notice being given. I heard about this sort of through the grapevine.
Guess who was exempt from this law!? Heres a few of the types of businesses who were exempt: Banks, Security brokers or dealers, securities exchange or clearing agencies, investment companies, investment advisers, insurance companies, accounting firms. Interesting!!
Fundamentally, there is a benefit to society to making ownership more visible. I own my house and that is on the public record - so anyone knows who to go after if I cause problems. But you could have a troublesome apartment complex owned by some obscure legal structure, with the police there all the time, and local government doesn't have visibility on who to hold responsible. We have gone too far to privatize and protect profit and dodge responsibility - if you have enough money to hire the right lawyers.
Isn’t it ironic that the courts will uphold businesses’ rights to privacy, free speech and free association, but deny women the very same rights. Isn’t a woman entitled to privacy and to freely associate privately with her healthcare providers? Is her rights over her body really any different than a business owner’s rights that demand less government intrusion, not more? If Republicans want to play the “right to privacy” card, then it should work equally for everyone.
Nice post! Good explanation, too. As a woman it's infuriating to be treated as somehow not capable of making my own decisions or having control over my own body. Most men don't understand this as they've never been in that position. I feel sorry for every American woman still in childbearing years. We've been fighting over this for decades and it's about to get worse. HIPA rules were supposed to guarantee medical privacy - just not if you're female and young enough to be fertile. From what I understood this unfairly targets small businesses. Why not ALL? So privacy for the extremely wealthy and big business - not for mom and pop stores or Etsy craftspeople. Medical privacy for men but not women. Message received. The parallel is solid.
@@jonathanjones3126doesn't the 4th amendment cover that? We are too be secure in our person's and papers from the government without a warrant or reasonable suspicion/probable cause. Yes, someone can film or view us in public but we have them that right by not taking precautions against it when we went out in public such as wearing a mask or something similar and if we do so no one has the right to come up and remove that or force us to in order to reveal ourselves so the 4th amendment covers that right to privacy although we have mostly given in on that.
The only llcs that they want info on are those that make less than $5,000,000. So only small businesses. Not mentioned in your video. Thought I'd give this information.
EVERYTHING in our tax codes and tax laws for private individuals and businesses are based on one thing, pay taxes or get taken to jail. People hate paying taxes since our government cannot spend our money wisely. Our government penalizes people trying to make ends meet. Politicians can send aid to country A, that money goes to country A's bank, dispersed to a company in country A, who has the politician's relative sitting on the board of directors, who gets paid a lofty sum of money, then hires another relative at a friendly law firm for consulting, who gets paid a healthy sum, who then repays a "loan" from the politician, another hefty sum. That's the real crime. That's what is ignored... those in power are exempt.
It could be compared to walking through a bad part of town carrying a box of gold labeled expensive gold on it. It is very much a safety and privacy issue for many business owners to be anonymous.
This happens in the rental market in the town I live in, as one company holds I bet 50% of apartments in Fargo, ND. Because of their awful reputation they have started creating business names for each apartment complex in an effort to hide who actually owns it. It's also a way they can hide their name from people in situations where they are renting terrible property, awful living conditions, no maintenance staff and harssh penalties for late rent. They actually have made the news locally because of the way fines work and how they're given, fees are paid with rent check the you're late again, even if they lost they check and admit it. The actual owner of this company is a powerful Republican in the state of North Dakota and unbelievable rich. I believe he lives in South Dakota because that state had essentially made itself an income tax haven for people that make high 6 figures or more
BOIR - The appeals court lifted the original injunction, but only to the extent that companies could be charge $562/day for failing to file. Then at the last minute it stayed it's lifting of the injunction. Which begs the question, "Will companies still be fined for failing to file?" What a mess this created. I had my clients just file the report.
What you said about people saying, “criminal enforcement” instead of “law-enforcement“, is how I feel about people saying that “the government forfeited” someone’s assets, instead of saying, “they seized” someone’s assets.
I'm not disclosing shit, they ask for way more information than that. Fine me, throw me in jail, I'm not disclosing. It's written in a way that has potential to harm small businesses
That building example is actually a great example. Thats happened more than one might realize. Usually when a silent partner is concerned. Happens when several people put money together to start a business, then over the years when some of those owners pass away and leave the property to their kids, it's easy to lose track of. Then one day a descendant gets an offer for the land to build a mall, sells it not knowing other people still own the building and suddenly the person who wants to build the mall is hit with injunctions by the other owners he had no clue existed.
Qatar Sovereign Wealth Fund is one of the worst offenders. Through a Spanish holding Company, it owns Heathrow Airport and British Airways amongst other companies.
IMO, land and company ownership should only be allowed to individuals. No land or stock should be allowed to be owned by any entity that isn't a normal human person.
I know of a mobile home cooperative that has board members collecting fuel assistance and SNAP. If they are required to list themselves as beneficial owners of a $2 million property they WILL lose their benefits, they volunteer without any benefit. They decide (by majority vote) to spend money for things like street signs and infrastructure without any personal gain. A mortgage requirement is to have all money handled by a 3rd party with lender oversight. To trust a law enforcement agency within the IRS to do the right thing is insane.
No, they haven't. This wasn't done properly. Anyone with an LLC (which is TONS of small businesses owners and individuals) are required to comply, even if the LLC doesn't have any income. A lot of people aren't even aware of this yet, the deadline is fast approaching, and if you didn't report, you could be subject to criminal penalties. Even if this is ultimately allowed, the deadline needs to be extended much further out.
The 500 a day fine would bankrupt a lot of people who might not know about this or forget to file the form. A buddy has 5 llcs, one for each rental property. He had no idea about this thing .. the government has ridiculous fines.
Because the government doesn't need to know. It has to do with personal freedom. Freedom from government overreach. That Pesky 4a that tells the government to stay out of the affairs of the people unless there's a credible reason to be sticking their noses where it otherwise doesn't belong.
Completely random thought process here. No facts involved. Lets start with the "Who owns this company" bit. I made a company that was specifically so that people wouldn't be battering down my door with complaints. So I could live my life normally outside of the business that I own part of. It's a layer of security that they have to go after the company rather than my front door. Now I may have a lot of disgruntled people who got what they ordered from said company and are just butthurt about it. THEY HAVE MY HOME ADDRESS NOW! Make sense?
The corporate ruling class buys whatever ruling it wants. Meanwhile voting taxpaying citizens are surveiled, privacy intruded, and private data auctioned and traded between companies, law enforcement agencies and governments.
The one thing all this that gets missed is that the actual government site charges $150 per application. At the time that I filed, they had already accumulated about 8.8 million dollars. If this gets overturned and is proven to be not legal, the people who did file and had to pay that fee, are they going to get a refund?
This law is Clearly government overreach. Any company making more than 5 mil a year doesn't have to report. Bottom line, when does a person have to report, as of this posting?
Yes, the incorporation is a States' rights issue. If the corporation deals in interstate commerce of any kind then it's a federal rights issue. Here is my proposal to fix it: if the corporation deals wholly within one and only one State and does not directly any product from outside of the US, it is not subject to the law. If the corporation directly deals in international or interstate trade (buying/selling directly from/to another business or client outside of the State) or is owned by, a subsidiary of, or has a subsidiary that is, a business out of State or in a different nation, then it is subject to the law. tldr: if the company buys and sells in-State and is wholly owned in-State, then it should be exempted.
Your company bought a laptop from Dell... Boom interstate transaction related to your business. Your company bought a pack of pens from Amazon... Boom interstate transaction. Your "answer" doesn't work with the pedantry that will come up.
I recently just found out about this through the Business Portal through my state. But for this "requirement," it's for Small Business, Major Corporations are basically exempt.
HOA have money involved. Even if the board isn't paid for their position, the HOA itself controls money and can easily be used for money laundering, managing money for interrelated contracts to hidden controlled llc
Steve, thank you for highlighting this new draconian law and the valiant efforts of the people working hard to save our constitution. When you really look at how this law is written, you realize this is about controlling independent, free minded Americans, and has nothing to do with money laundering. This law only applied to companies with 20 employees or fewer And would create a database of all American entrepreneurs who fit in that category. The law further stated that this list could be shared with foreign governments, i.e. China. This was the last ditch effort to sell us out to this administration’s masters, i.e. china, and it looks like crisis may have narrowly been avoided.
It is ridiculous the amount of exempt entities that could actually get away with money laundering VS the small business owner that does not have an army of lawyers to bury the government in lawsuits.
My favorite part of this little bit of legislation is the exemptions. My favorite exemption is, any entity that makes 5 million dollars or more per year. Really lets you know who the target of this legislation is.
I submitted this info to the feds the other day because a have an LLC (which is extremely small and has never turned a profit) and the government threatened $500 per day fine if the info was not submitted.
Isn't it interesting how the status quo must be protected when it applies to billionaires? Not so much when it applies to the rest of us, especially when it involves health care. What is Orwellian about knowing who owns a dang company? What are they hiding?
Actually this law has nothing to do with billionaires. It only targets small businesses and exempts entities most likely to be involved in money laundering. Not to mention, it's an attempt by the Fed to insert themselves into state governmental operations. Can you tell me why I should face penalties of $591/day or a max of $10k/yr and up to two years in federal prison if I forgot to file a piece of paper on a LLC I formed 8 years ago that never has and never will generate revenue? Meanwhile, banks, insurance, and check cashing companies, businesses over $5mil in revenue, (23 exempt types of companies in total) are all exempt from complying...
@dooshnukem32 So you're just mad because... billionaires are exempt? You don't think it's the richest guys who want to hide their interest in businesses? Like... Enron? Just fill out the paper? How hard can it be?
@@scanmead I had a more fleshed out response, but YT keeps deleting it. So I'll try a summary: "Isn't it interesting how the status quo must be protected when it applies to billionaires? Not so much when it applies to the rest of us" "So you're just mad because billionaires are exempt?" Pick a lane.
So big corporations that launder money for politicians aren't required to report? Haha
We need a law “corrupt politicians transparency Act”
We have those laws it’s called Articles 1,2,3,6 and the 14th Amendment. But the American people have been taught that the Constitution only controls the people instead of controlling the Government as it was intended. See the 10th Amendment for the actual Authority Structure.
Even if everything was out in plain language, the vast majority of people would vote on team & aesthetics. Vibes over facts. Not because ppl are "idiots" or anything like that, rather not taught to focus on these issues. News were about sensetionalism for decades, social media made it even more.
@@freedomovertyranny1512 you may be joking but I'd 100% support. We need to know who their ultimate beneficial owners are.
The Pelosi Act
@@TheOrangeRoad
This is just another law to make it easier for the government to spy on its citizens. First was the FISA court, then collecting the numbers of the people we call, now it's how we invest the money. The information is there the government just wants to violate our 5th amendment rights by creating laws that make it easier for them to get the information
As soon as you realize that this bill only required businesses with under a certain amount of revenue ($10 million I think) to report this information, you immediately realize that it’s got nothing to do with preventing money laundering.
It has nothing to do with money laundering of the rich, it is designed to prevent small scale money laundering. Where do most taxes come from, it is not the rich that pay most of the taxes. This was only about making sure the middle class continue to pay the taxes so the rich don't have to by identifying middle class people that hold LLC's.
It's over reach of the government.
And 4th amendment violation.
yeah, the bigger companys dont like compitition.
They didn't like that they didn't have ultimate power and information to destroy business owners who disobeyed during COVID.
Just like the 600 dollar 1099 reporting rule was to prevent money laundering.
Most people have never heard of bank deposit structuring. To make sure money is not from illegal gain when you deposit more than $10,000 at a bank they have to report it to the US Treasury Department. Structuring is when you make multiple below the $10,000 threshold. Say you make several deposits of $7,000 , $8000, and $9000 in a month into a bank account. This look suspicious therefore the bank reports you to the US Treasury Department. I've heard stories of small business owners having their accounts frozen because they thought they were trying to evade money laundering. Turns out the small business owners were not trying to hide anything they were just making deposits based on their cash flow not wanting to keep too much on hand at the business.
Exactly. When you start a business, your deposits may average $1k. As your business grows, the deposits grow. To $3k, $5k, then $7k. Next it grows to $9k, and suddenly you show up on the government's radar as a suspicious money launderer. Never mind that literally _every_ small business goes through this phase once they grow big enough.
Yes, if you deposit over $10,000 that is suspicious. and if you deposit less than $10,000 that is also suspicious. Depositing money into you r account is suspicious.
@@twentyfiveyears5010 of course it is, being self sufficient is suspicious. You should only live off the government teet, and be a serf to the elites. How dare you step out of line.
I believe structuring only involves cash deposits.
@@Michigan_farmboy correct, but banks will also look at other things and make their own determinations and make suspicious activity reports. I had to deal with it when father passed away and his estate paid me out from multiple accounts.
The Kings of money laundering don't want competition.
Exactly. The Federal government is expert at making money disappear. Quite often with no way of knowing where the money actually went.
When money disappears it goes into the Pentagon's black budget. Government doesn't need to launder money. They print it and own it.
B-I-N-G-O
The proposed law did nothing to prevent money laundering and everything to crush small business owners.
If you once had a LLC that you set up to start a business, but life got in the way, and you have ZERO income flowing through the LLC, and you didn't file the paperwork on the LLC, with zero income, you would face a DAILY penalty of $591 plus the potential of a two year prison sentence and be a labeled a felon.
Oh, if your LLC does more than $5 million in revenue, you don't have to file and don't have to face the penalties or potential jail time. If you have a bunch of members of the LLC, then you don't have to comply with the law.
It literally only targets very small companies, regardless of how little revenue is generated.
Liar
Ah, that makes it make more sense to me.
Allowing the wealthy to continue their corruption, while making sure that little guys never get to that point.
@@I_Am_Your_Problemno. It's true.
They didn't even bother to grandfather older businesses or send formal notification to anyone. The enforcement threats are completely inappropriate. It simply has to be unconstitutional.
Exactly correct
"Corporate Transparency Act" ...Kinda funny that this law proposal came from those with no transparency and and no accountability 🤔
Like the Inflation Reduction Act that ballooned inflation!
"Crime Enforcement" - ensuring sufficient crime is being committed.
"Drug Enforcement Agency" - ensuring people take enough drugs.
Food and Drug Administration; assuring the food supply is thoroughly tainted by drugs.
Seems appropriate... Why does Government want to "enforce Crime"? They hate competition!!!
This may be true
I want my issue!
DMV = Department of Many Victims
injunction junction whats your function ...
Hooking up words and phrases and clauses 😂😂😂
@@KM-zu9we Saying words... They say are laws tthough un voted. That goings on...
I needed this. Thank you.😊
Simply stalling for a counter offer from the really rich people...
Sesame Street is involved in money laundering !?
I didn’t realize that financial institutions were exempt. Why in the world should that be? That’s where most of the financial crimes like money laundering happen. Who’s covering up for whom? 🤔
Exactly. It should be the exact opposite, considering most of the crime is committed by those entities.
Most financial institutions are publicly traded. The ownership is not hidden.
Small businesses are where the easier money laundering takes place. Dry Cleaners. Bars. Comic Book Stores, etc...
US Bank has to close a branch who's employees questioned, withheld and reported interstate death insurance proceeds as "suspect". They then delayed both deposit and subsequent large withdrawal for 14 days to confirm funds were legit and "educate" the depositer on how to pay a contractor. A year later another large settlement check was received and again blocked for 8 days. Bad invasive business practices defying established laws, rules and procedures.
@@Golfnut_2099 You should tell that to HSBC.
While U agree with the idea that they should not be exempt if such a law manages to remain legal, I strenuously object to your unsupported and confident declaration that most financial crimes are committed by such relatively few organizations. Where are your stats? Where's your sound logic? Pointing out your hate and disgust for an industry doesn't count - you need data. Data, not anecdotes.
"Crime Enforcement" sounds pretty accurate to me.
I call it "tax avoidance," but the IRS called it "tax evasion." It is really just semantics.
The issue did grow, and is growing, to the point tax collection and circumvention, avoidance and evasion are fields of study in themselves.
Another thought is that college degrees are college degrees and professional certifications are available in medical insurance billing.
Prefect, another arms race. I am hoping to establish a PhD program in mind masterbation. Oh wait, that exists already, in every field of human endeavor.
Not if the uber rich get their way..."Its tax avoidance when WE do it, but tax evasion when you do it..." Stay in your dingy peasant! Those yachts are mine!!!" Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out!!!
Crime enforcement: the truth always comes out in the end
So u know nothing 😅😅😅😊😊
So if u deposit your check.u can be charged with structureing..think for a change don't say different your not really that stupid. A hundred million ppl deposit less than 10grand every week 😅😅😅😅 a million small businessed deposit less than that every day. This is overreach ..they could charge you Fool under this law ..
I started a small - very, very small - LLC when I retired 10 years ago. I am owner, president and janitor. The LLC typically earns less than $8,000 per year. I have screwed around trying to fill out their damn form for a couple of days, and it has me totally befuddled. There should be some sort of exemption for simple situations.
Even worse, a lot of LLC's are not even active. This whole thing is just dumb.
Fishing. The government wants to watch everything we do, without probable cause, so they can prosecute and persecute as many citizens as possible.
Its not about as many as possible.. just a few to set an example and then to control whos allowed to benefit from a company.. its called communism and people don't comprehend it
The agents have to do something/anything to justify their continued employment.
One thing I wished you would have covered is why is it only in the 11th hour the courts are now getting involved? The law was passed in 2021. Nothing could have been worked out between then and now? I would have guessed there would have been lawsuits filed day 1 in 2021.
Slavery never ended.
There was never a law. Only congress can make law. The constitution is not a difficult document to read.
Covid shut down all TRUTH and thus no law allowed in those sick minded years
Law Makers pass unconstitutional laws all the time as it takes time to have courts over turn them. Law Makers have lawyers to give them all this breakdown. Often bills are written by billionaires or corporations to target destruction of rights and new business formation.
Sooner or later every law will stand against you unless you can afford to go to court to fight every unconstitutional law targeting you. There will be no blanket overturning of laws, it will only be case by case.
Lawsuits were probably filed almost immediately, but this was an appeals court ruling. It went to court, there was some sort of judgement there, and then either that judgement or some aspect of the trial was appealed, and that's what this case was about. This injunction is happening now because the process has gone at the typical slow pace and it was about to come into effect.
As a small business owner, small as in me, I think it is an overreaching and misguided law. I am expected to comply but financial institutions are exempt. Which one commits more financial crimes? I don't really care if anyone knows who owns my business but they require a lot more information than just my name and address. The fine schedule is also absurd, I think it was created to be a revenue source.
That was my thought as well
Same here. The threat of the fines for me but not others was absurd. I didn't even have to file for an LLC but I chose to take the most legal pathway I could and as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
It was simply drafted by insanely rich people, to ensure they don't see someone like you at their yacht brokers office...Whenever someone gets a little "too rich for their liking", they will simply sick the feds on them to drain their wealth...They cant be allowing some paltry millionaire to turn it into billions, now, can they...?
@@ehrichweissLLCs have to file
@Yohoo272 I think he was saying that he didn't need to create an LLC for his business but chose to do so anyhow.
why not mention that an Alabama judge also found it unconstitutional prior to Texas finding it unconstitutional?
Unconstitutional, how? A Company and Corporate Entity is not an american citizen, and thus not protected by the bill of rights. Only CITIZENS are Protected by the Bill of Rights.
If a company or corporation was considered a Citizen and thus Protected by the Bill of Rights, then they are commiting Slavery and Violating the Bill of Rights, as they would have the right to not be slaves, but companies can be bought and owned by citizens and other companies.
You can't have the cake AND eat it too. Either they are protected and thus can not have companies own other companies and MUST be owned by a citizen that is the True Creator/Owner, or they do NOT have rights and protections, and thus NOTHING can be concidered 'Unconstitutional' cause they have no rights are Companies and Businesses.
Did that go to Appeal?
The problem with the CTA is it unfairly and unjustly targets small mom and pop and freelancer LLCs typically with just one or two members, who are unlikely to engage in any money laundering or other financial crimes. It also exempts larger entities > $5 million revenue, OR entities with owners holding less than 25% - so, you could have a 5+ member LLC that is exempt too - just the entities that are more likely to engage in crimes. The worst part is the penalties for not filing or filing late - $591/day (max $10k) plus TWO years in the federal pen. Those level of penalties don't even exist for tax returns, unless in the extreme. I hope the law is struck down permanently next year.
I hope it's reinstated with more of the accountability being exposed with limited fines.
@@chrisguli2865 it’s specifically to go after mom and pop shops to fine them into oblivion because they handle their own taxes and had no idea this law went into effect who wants to bet?
@@chrisguli2865 The first time I looked at this I laughed at the fact that the exempt people are exactly the ones we keep seeing break the laws. I assume they are also the biggest political donors.
If you're a big enough boy to create an LLC, which offers significant protections for the creators in the form of the "corporate veil", you're a big enough boy to do the paperwork. Especially since corporations have had paperwork and bookkeeping requirements long before this.
Enough of this worshiping at the alter of small business. 9 times out of 10 when you see a company pulling some beyond-the-pale labor violation, law violation, customer attack, etc, its a small business. In my experience, they're often run by people who don't work well with others, so forgive me if I don't shed a tear for tinpot tyrants who have to fill out a form and lick a stamp.
Those small llcs are exactly the ones likely to engage in money laundering. You’re way off base.
If they really want to stop money laundering, they should shut down all these celebrity and political non-profits. Gone are the days where a charity does something. Now it just lines the pockets of the heads of the charity. You donate to mine and get a tax benefit, and I'll donate to yours for a tax benefit so that we get tax free money that has been laundered clean.
Charities only need to give 10% to their charitable efforts. It wA a scam for money laundering from the get go
Did you see the one about an eighth grader paying for lunch with a 2 dollar bill and then charged with a felony. It's a good thing there is still elderly ppl. living to remember the past.
They charged them with a crime before figuring out it was legal tender??
So many problems can be solved with a simple Google search.
I just read the story you mentioned. What a complete waste of taxpayer dollars by bumbling idiots. More importantly the young lady now has this trauma to deal with. 8th grade is tough enough age bracket. Unbelievable. They likely could have brought it to a bank to verify in a couple hours.
There were never any charges filed in that case. It’s not that they didn’t know about $2 bills, they were concerned it was counterfeit because it didn’t react as expected with that pen they use to test bills. They determined it was real later that day.
Shame the kid didn't make six or seven figures out of a settlement on this.
I wonder how this law will affect the Hollywood practice of paying a shell company all their profits so they can claim a movie made zero profit and avoid paying actors and directors their cut.
It won’t, because the way it looks, large entities are protected….
The worst thing is, they NEVER notified corporations of this NEW requirement... which carries penalties including $10,000 fine + $580 per day + 2 years in prison.
NO OFFICIAL NOTICE. I heard about it on UA-cam.
Steve, do you suppose they will _notify_ people of those fines? Yeah. I think they might.
I wonder if the writers of the US Constitution EVER IN THEIR LIVES thought, or even dreamed, that businesses would be guaranteed the same 'rights' as individual citizens.
I spoke to them yesterday and they said yes.
Corporations were a recent thing at that time, I understand created to deal with the problems of family-owned banks. But they were very far from common, and watched like a hawk!
Jurors need to wake up and realize it is a "just us" system.
Your average neighbor is a sociopath.
Jurists?
In America, you have to have over a million in assets and a record of over 200k income before you can buy a $40 share in a company not traded on a stock exchange.
Designed to keep the little guy from helping another little guy cut into the big guy's profits.
The ones using shell companies are large companies, and those are the ones that don't have to file.....
99% of llc owners ALREADY gave the info to FINCEN under threat of imminent fines. How do they get their rights back?
Yep, I'd just formed my LLC and was told I had 90 days to file. It was incredibly invasive and I was 100% uncomfortable with doing it but like you said, there were threats of big fines for not complying.
Don't worry. If the court rules in your favor, you'll have other shell corporations to use for tax avoidance and money laundering.
Actually, only 30% or so already have. I personally haven't, as I am waiting on the decision of this rule. I really don't think that this rule will be beneficial to anyone and that catching actual money launderers will be so few that this law would not have been necessary. I feel it's just another attempt of big government to wedge their way into small businesses in our country.
@@tradingmedic they fell prey to the fear-shame on them. i’ve been watching this very closely because my little granddaughter is involved in my business and I don’t want them having her information at this point.
@@daviking-88 it will be deemed unconstitutional eventually.
The problem with this law is FinCen and BIO which only applies to small businesses.
Exactly
I've seen this. LLC owned by a trust makes it difficult to find who owns the actual business. Rockefeller family owns GE. They bought it from Edison in the 1950s. If you try to look up GE today it will only give the name of the CEO & not the owners. This is because it's under a trust managed by a trustee/CEO.
Good example!
Most people don't know that different classes of shares exist.
There should be a specific reason to go looking. Not a fishing expedition. If there is reasonable cause to get the appropriate authorities, e.g. Warrants, Subpoenas, etc etc.
I don't like all the exemptions. This type of law should apply to all or none. Or only to companies that do any interstate transactions.
So, I watched and waited most of 2024 to see if the injunction would prevail before filing the BOI. It was lifted late in the year so I went ahead and filed to be compliant. Now at the last minute its in force again.
If this law ultimately fails what will happen to all of the data the feds have already collected?
Sent off or taken to China, most likely
This targets small business only. Large businesses are exempt.
Because large corporations are generally publicly traded and the ownership is reported elsewhere.
@@Golfnut_2099 yes but there is that HUGE middle ground of private companies over 5 million revenue with no oversight. Sure S&P and blue chips are watched closely but that is a small minority.
@@chrisguli2865 I have not looked at the rules. I just know that larger companies, especially publicly traded companies, have other reporting requirements. Where is most of the fraud? It is smaller companies that are privately owned.
Mr. Lehto, Enron might not be the best example here: Enron would have been exempted under the CTA-BOIR requirement - Enron had assets over $5-Million and was a fiduciary entity that also would have been exempted; thus, Enron would never have been on the FINCEN radar.
The way this is done im my eastern European home country, companies need to publicly disclose their beneficiaries in order to receive any government money. That covers government contracts, subsidies and similar. The idea is that you're entitled to keep that information private, and the government is entitled to decline to do business with you in that case.
Now, obviously it's not a silver bullet and there are ways to work around it. But it has been surprisingly difficult to work around while also not breaking any law. When people try to do it, at some point they end up lying to the court about who receives the end benefits, and if they're found out, they get in trouble. I wonder if that approach would be constitutional in the US.
@@matushorvath yep it would work but that would require the entities running it to do actual work investigating
This has nothing to do with government funded anything.. lmfao wow. Amazing how you literally think this is for businesses who receive money from government.. when its nothing to do with tax payer loans or anything.. they want to know who's getting what so they can control who gets to keep their business moving forward.. gee communism isn't hard to comprehend yet you people think America is free 😂
@@jeremycable51 Yes, that will always be a problem. The companies can just lie, and unless someone actually checks, the whole system is meaningless.
Here it's done by a court, you need to submit the information to a judge and you get a certificate back. Surprisingly it works well enough, a judge is more capable of finding the truth than a random government worker.
Involving judges also means if you want to workaround this, you will end up lying to the court, which is a nice bonus because it makes the risk high for the cheaters.
Nice! I think that would in fact work, here, too! I'll take that up with my Representative, since the House controls the origination and approval of all Federal contracts.
@@davidgoodnow269 In nearly 25 years, not a single contract that I have worked has been sent to the House of Representatives for approval. None. The entity who receives appropriations is responsible for the solicitation of bids/proposals and the award of contracts through their respective contracting offices.
Sounds like a law looking for a crime.
As someone who routinely has to pick my way through webs of interconnected LLCs to track down responsible parties, I am very much in favor of this legislation. Waaaay too many dirtbags hiding behind DE laws.
Actually, I received a statement recently for my newly formed LLC that the only people that are exmpt from filing right now are those 13,000 in that suit the rest of us still have to file that form or face penalties.
It'ld be better if all businesses needed to have a human officially associated with it instead of just small ones.
Not only is this law a massive invasion of privacy but it is a blatent example of how special interest lobbying has resulted in the law including not just a couple but 23 exemptions where you don't have to file. For example... have more than 20 employees or $5M in revenue? don't need to file. You're a VC fund or insurance "fund"? no need to file. So not only is it a huge invasion of privacy but it by definition doesn't make the disclosure requirement equal across all business entities. Exactly what we've learned to expect from Yellen's crony corruption. Good riddance.
You should see the racket they have going on in the nursing home industry down here in florida.
It's not just FL, and it is very gross.
Definitely needs to be investigation.
"Enforcement" is a funny use according to SCOTUS. The word kind of implies preventing crime, which they technically law enforcement cannot, rather just attempt deterrence...
This is not coming from small businesses. Small businesses typically don't layer LLCs like this. Large businesses and criminal enterprises do (not much difference between the two, if you ask me).
Businesses are licensed at the state level. There is no federal authority to regulate any business or know their ownership.
That doesn't stop a bureaucrat at the federal level from wanting it
When did they shutdown the IRS?
Unless the business is involved in interstate commerce, then the fed can regulate it. The problem is, the fed has stretched interstate commerce beyond reason. A restaurant that only exists in one state and buys from a distributor that has a warehouse in that state is certainly not engaged in interstate commerce in my opinion but the fed has been able to get around this.
When I started my business I had to get an EIN number from the feds before I filed with the state......
3:35 It is the government we are talking about. "Crime Enforcement" is accurate. They have to maintain a certain level of crime which maintains a certain level of fear to justify what they are doing.
So the judges campaigns received donations from one or more of these entities.
Federal judges do not run for office... Well, at least not in the traditional sense.
lol
Federal judges are appointed by governors or presidents. They are usually very pro corporate local judges or corporate lawyers that are selected into those positions.
You mean “vacations” and “gifts”…..
People do this hiding of responsibility with non-profit organisations as well.
I think the idea of identifying the beneficial owners of companies is a good idea… but I fail to see how threatening every soccer mom with an Etsy shop does anything to help prevent nefarious shell-company-ception from occurring in Delaware.
I ended up closing my small business in part because I found the reporting requirements too burdensome. My tiny hobby business was simply not worth the legal liability of accidentally mis-reporting something and being buried in fines.
So another way to execute Unconstitutional seizures of assets to enrich the pockets of gouvernment and federal agencys
The problem being when used against small enterprises they havent the financial ability to mount a legal challenge without damaging their bussines
But well backed enterprises (including those laundering money for illegal operations) have the finances to run legal rings around the charges !
Good. Warrantless monitoring of all customers, accounts, and transactions by the federal government to detect crime (either directly or through laws forcing banks to do them) might be effective, but it makes a complete mockery of the 4th Amendment.
it'd effective to cherry pick who they want to go after. like the irs does now. audits are also unconstitutional for the same reason. "we don't like how that looks. it's not against the law but it's a red flag. now prove you are innocent of our suspicions by showing all receipts and money transfers. mmm ok you might be innocent sigh". completely unconstitutional.
Unfortunately the 4A ship has long since sailed. 😕
The laws are not effective except as a system of tracking and controlling ordinary people, to the benefit of big business and big government but to the detriment of "we the people ".
@@MattH-wg7ou Sunk, not sailed.
You're making a mockery out of 4th amendment.
incorporation is privilege, not a right.
incorporation is a gift from the public.
Corporations are not people. Period.
Your next mistake is take some time to learn about 'Patent Trolls', good luck trying to find the owners of multibillion dollar business who creates nothing, with no value added to society, who makes a living off suing other small business out of business using the US justice system as a means of extortion.
Thank you for bring attention to this I run a small business and saw this and immediately thought that it was a 4th & 5th amendment. There was almost no info on this a month ago.
Winners of big lotteries sometimes do this to protect themselves.
Damn right, dont want every person you ever met at your doorstep asking for a hand out. Cutting checks to friends and family trying to be nice is part of how many of those winners end up broke in 5 years.
I have $14 million in $100 bills buried under my kitchen floor. I am baffled as to what to do with it. It’s gonna be a hell of a job to dig it up in the first place. Then, how do you get some good out of All those nice crisp hundred dollar bills? You can’t just go buy a house with them or a car or something. I was sure hoping you would give me some ideas as to how to proceed.
The most remarkable part of this law is the nature, type, and size of the companies that are exempted.
Exactly!
The judges said Citizens United was legal, and wealthy people can pay for the laws THEY want to exist
So it would make sense they would have blocked the law then.
Who paid the judges?
@@baldilocksmcfedders6335 the comment was initially about another consequential judgement that has shaped life as we know it and is worth highlighting. Is that okay with you?
Constitution much?
It was leagal because it was passed by congress. This rule is simply a power grab by the Dept of Treasury. Rules are not law, they are suggestions.
Thank you. I received an email about this and was so confused. We're an HOA and I am the current board president. The info was wrong for the property and they were trying to imply I was the beneficial owner. I'm not opposed to finding out who actually owns things, but this is clearly not ready for roll out.
Same here. The management company said they can't/won't fill it out because of the liability. I'm thinking of finishing a few projects and resigning. Does this affect us as hoa volunteers?
Thats funny.. the same mentality that you have as an HOA president is the same mentality pushing these laws.. You're a communist tyrant 😂
Dictating how others live their lives.. gee what a concept
Ben is sticking out the top of the RES IPSA tag
They didn't like that they didn't have ultimate power and information to destroy small business owners who disobeyed during COVID.
That's literally what all of this is about.
It’s literally about COVID? Is that still a thing 😂. Also when are we allowed to disobey government regulations and which ones because you seem to think it’s fine to do so. There are many regulations, laws and agencies I would love to give the finger to.
you really believe drug dealers, terrorists, and other criminals are not using our financial system?
@ yes, that’s what money laundering does. It’s cleaning up the money gained through criminal activity through “legal” businesses and depositing and investing it in our financial system. This is nothing new, it’s a practice perfected by the mafia. Drug dealers don’t go to the bank with $10K weekly deposits.
@@x--. I really believe I don't care and your don't take the rights of law abiding citizens away just to catch the few criminals. Those same criminals you mention hide evidence and do business out of their homes and could easily be found out if law enforcement officers could barge in and search their house without warrants so are we willing to say that law enforcement can now search everyone's private property without a warrant to make it easier to catch the few criminals in society? Yes that's an exaggeration but that's what laws like this boil down to and it's a symptom of society giving in to the fear of certain criminals getting away with something and being willing to give up their rights to avoid that without realizing they are also giving up everyone else's rights by going asking with it. It goes to the fallacy of "if you don't break the law you have nothing to worry about" making something ok but that's not what this country or our justice system were founded on. 😊
Holding companies have ben around for many, many years. I emailed this to you about a month ago when the Texas court ruled, I'm glad you finally did this video. Thank you.
A terrible law, massive government overreach and ultimately the information will end up being abused in every way possible, not unlike civil asset forfeiture.
After a discussion with my CPA, I decided to close my LLC before the end of the year to avoid the filing requirement. I had not done any work under that company in five years so this decision made sense. I live in Missouri. So because of the Secretary of State of Missouri rules I was required to pay $50 for them to accept and file the applications. It was set up as two different applications with a $25 fee for each. Here is what got me --THERE WAS NO NOTICE SENT TO ME ABOUT THIS REQUIREMENT.-- I believe that many many legitimate LLCs will be caught off guard because of no notice being given. I heard about this sort of through the grapevine.
Guess who was exempt from this law!? Heres a few of the types of businesses who were exempt: Banks, Security brokers or dealers, securities exchange or clearing agencies, investment companies, investment advisers, insurance companies, accounting firms. Interesting!!
Insurance companies? If they aren't covered by this that tells me all I need to know.
Fundamentally, there is a benefit to society to making ownership more visible. I own my house and that is on the public record - so anyone knows who to go after if I cause problems. But you could have a troublesome apartment complex owned by some obscure legal structure, with the police there all the time, and local government doesn't have visibility on who to hold responsible. We have gone too far to privatize and protect profit and dodge responsibility - if you have enough money to hire the right lawyers.
Ben is ahead of the TURBINE number plate.
Thanks for bringing this important stuff to light! So many people do not know this stuff.
Isn’t it ironic that the courts will uphold businesses’ rights to privacy, free speech and free association, but deny women the very same rights. Isn’t a woman entitled to privacy and to freely associate privately with her healthcare providers? Is her rights over her body really any different than a business owner’s rights that demand less government intrusion, not more? If Republicans want to play the “right to privacy” card, then it should work equally for everyone.
What does this have to do with "women's rights"?
@ I explained the parallel very clearly. What is it that you don’t understand?
Then get a new federal constitutional amendment that states we have a expectation of privacy.
Nice post! Good explanation, too. As a woman it's infuriating to be treated as somehow not capable of making my own decisions or having control over my own body. Most men don't understand this as they've never been in that position.
I feel sorry for every American woman still in childbearing years. We've been fighting over this for decades and it's about to get worse.
HIPA rules were supposed to guarantee medical privacy - just not if you're female and young enough to be fertile.
From what I understood this unfairly targets small businesses. Why not ALL?
So privacy for the extremely wealthy and big business - not for mom and pop stores or Etsy craftspeople. Medical privacy for men but not women. Message received.
The parallel is solid.
@@jonathanjones3126doesn't the 4th amendment cover that? We are too be secure in our person's and papers from the government without a warrant or reasonable suspicion/probable cause. Yes, someone can film or view us in public but we have them that right by not taking precautions against it when we went out in public such as wearing a mask or something similar and if we do so no one has the right to come up and remove that or force us to in order to reveal ourselves so the 4th amendment covers that right to privacy although we have mostly given in on that.
Nationwide, HOA officers as 'Beneficial Owners', are required to sign up too. Crazy.
The only llcs that they want info on are those that make less than $5,000,000. So only small businesses. Not mentioned in your video. Thought I'd give this information.
EVERYTHING in our tax codes and tax laws for private individuals and businesses are based on one thing, pay taxes or get taken to jail. People hate paying taxes since our government cannot spend our money wisely. Our government penalizes people trying to make ends meet.
Politicians can send aid to country A, that money goes to country A's bank, dispersed to a company in country A, who has the politician's relative sitting on the board of directors, who gets paid a lofty sum of money, then hires another relative at a friendly law firm for consulting, who gets paid a healthy sum, who then repays a "loan" from the politician, another hefty sum. That's the real crime. That's what is ignored... those in power are exempt.
If you had everything you'd also have everywhere which is where you'd put it
Why is it always a "Texas federal judge"? And how do they seem like they can stop anything affecting the entire country??
It could be compared to walking through a bad part of town carrying a box of gold labeled expensive gold on it. It is very much a safety and privacy issue for many business owners to be anonymous.
This happens in the rental market in the town I live in, as one company holds I bet 50% of apartments in Fargo, ND. Because of their awful reputation they have started creating business names for each apartment complex in an effort to hide who actually owns it. It's also a way they can hide their name from people in situations where they are renting terrible property, awful living conditions, no maintenance staff and harssh penalties for late rent. They actually have made the news locally because of the way fines work and how they're given, fees are paid with rent check the you're late again, even if they lost they check and admit it. The actual owner of this company is a powerful Republican in the state of North Dakota and unbelievable rich. I believe he lives in South Dakota because that state had essentially made itself an income tax haven for people that make high 6 figures or more
BOIR - The appeals court lifted the original injunction, but only to the extent that companies could be charge $562/day for failing to file. Then at the last minute it stayed it's lifting of the injunction. Which begs the question, "Will companies still be fined for failing to file?" What a mess this created. I had my clients just file the report.
So if the law isn't legal you just threw your clients under the bus 😂..
What you said about people saying, “criminal enforcement” instead of “law-enforcement“, is how I feel about people saying that “the government forfeited” someone’s assets, instead of saying, “they seized” someone’s assets.
I'm not disclosing shit, they ask for way more information than that.
Fine me, throw me in jail, I'm not disclosing. It's written in a way that has potential to harm small businesses
How could they throw you in jail unless they already knew. Makes it irrelevant but that's what bureaucracy does.
That building example is actually a great example. Thats happened more than one might realize. Usually when a silent partner is concerned. Happens when several people put money together to start a business, then over the years when some of those owners pass away and leave the property to their kids, it's easy to lose track of. Then one day a descendant gets an offer for the land to build a mall, sells it not knowing other people still own the building and suddenly the person who wants to build the mall is hit with injunctions by the other owners he had no clue existed.
As long as the big guy gets his 20%. Remember. Nobody is above the law except for.( Insert politicians name an relations here.)
Zero evidence
@methonyHolmes-e8p Plenty of evidence. No accountability. Typical Republican response. Talk tough while they sit on their hands.
Qatar Sovereign Wealth Fund is one of the worst offenders. Through a Spanish holding Company, it owns Heathrow Airport and British Airways amongst other companies.
IMO, land and company ownership should only be allowed to individuals. No land or stock should be allowed to be owned by any entity that isn't a normal human person.
You so smart. 🥴
I know of a mobile home cooperative that has board members collecting fuel assistance and SNAP. If they are required to list themselves as beneficial owners of a $2 million property they WILL lose their benefits, they volunteer without any benefit. They decide (by majority vote) to spend money for things like street signs and infrastructure without any personal gain. A mortgage requirement is to have all money handled by a 3rd party with lender oversight. To trust a law enforcement agency within the IRS to do the right thing is insane.
The judges have been bought.
That's the only reason they would disagree with you.
Just like mexico
No, they haven't. This wasn't done properly. Anyone with an LLC (which is TONS of small businesses owners and individuals) are required to comply, even if the LLC doesn't have any income. A lot of people aren't even aware of this yet, the deadline is fast approaching, and if you didn't report, you could be subject to criminal penalties.
Even if this is ultimately allowed, the deadline needs to be extended much further out.
Which ones?
A lot of small business owners are calling this law an undue burden.
The 500 a day fine would bankrupt a lot of people who might not know about this or forget to file the form. A buddy has 5 llcs, one for each rental property. He had no idea about this thing .. the government has ridiculous fines.
How is "Who owns this company?" an unconstitutional invasion of privacy?
Because the government doesn't need to know. It has to do with personal freedom. Freedom from government overreach. That Pesky 4a that tells the government to stay out of the affairs of the people unless there's a credible reason to be sticking their noses where it otherwise doesn't belong.
It does far more than that.
5th amendment
Because it's none of your business. I suggest a first reading of the 4th amendment to start.
Completely random thought process here. No facts involved. Lets start with the "Who owns this company" bit.
I made a company that was specifically so that people wouldn't be battering down my door with complaints. So I could live my life normally outside of the business that I own part of. It's a layer of security that they have to go after the company rather than my front door. Now I may have a lot of disgruntled people who got what they ordered from said company and are just butthurt about it. THEY HAVE MY HOME ADDRESS NOW!
Make sense?
The corporate ruling class buys whatever ruling it wants.
Meanwhile voting taxpaying citizens are surveiled, privacy intruded, and private data auctioned and traded between companies, law enforcement agencies and governments.
Ben getting some TURBINE, Steve's LHS high
Hard to believe I was Ben Blind today! 🤓
G’nite Bob.
The one thing all this that gets missed is that the actual government site charges $150 per application. At the time that I filed, they had already accumulated about 8.8 million dollars. If this gets overturned and is proven to be not legal, the people who did file and had to pay that fee, are they going to get a refund?
This law is Clearly government overreach. Any company making more than 5 mil a year doesn't have to report. Bottom line, when does a person have to report, as of this posting?
Other laws apply.
Yes, the incorporation is a States' rights issue. If the corporation deals in interstate commerce of any kind then it's a federal rights issue.
Here is my proposal to fix it: if the corporation deals wholly within one and only one State and does not directly any product from outside of the US, it is not subject to the law. If the corporation directly deals in international or interstate trade (buying/selling directly from/to another business or client outside of the State) or is owned by, a subsidiary of, or has a subsidiary that is, a business out of State or in a different nation, then it is subject to the law.
tldr: if the company buys and sells in-State and is wholly owned in-State, then it should be exempted.
Your company bought a laptop from Dell... Boom interstate transaction related to your business.
Your company bought a pack of pens from Amazon... Boom interstate transaction.
Your "answer" doesn't work with the pedantry that will come up.
Ben hanging out with turbine license plate
I recently just found out about this through the Business Portal through my state. But for this "requirement," it's for Small Business, Major Corporations are basically exempt.
Why does this law include HOA board members, who are volunteers, so no money involved???
HOA have money involved. Even if the board isn't paid for their position, the HOA itself controls money and can easily be used for money laundering, managing money for interrelated contracts to hidden controlled llc
@Vincent_Beers then the HOA company emplyees should abide by this law and not board of directors who are volunteers, no?
@@ania_p_w All members are likely listed as beneficiaries even if they aren't paid a salary.
Steve, thank you for highlighting this new draconian law and the valiant efforts of the people working hard to save our constitution.
When you really look at how this law is written, you realize this is about controlling independent, free minded Americans, and has nothing to do with money laundering.
This law only applied to companies with 20 employees or fewer And would create a database of all American entrepreneurs who fit in that category. The law further stated that this list could be shared with foreign governments, i.e. China.
This was the last ditch effort to sell us out to this administration’s masters, i.e. china, and it looks like crisis may have narrowly been avoided.
When "LLC" stands for,
"Lying Larcenous Criminals." What corporation has the LEAST liability? The government, of course.
It is ridiculous the amount of exempt entities that could actually get away with money laundering VS the small business owner that does not have an army of lawyers to bury the government in lawsuits.
Very glad that we don't have to file that stupid paperwork. We already did it with the state and feds.
And just who do you think is requiring the filing??
My favorite part of this little bit of legislation is the exemptions. My favorite exemption is, any entity that makes 5 million dollars or more per year. Really lets you know who the target of this legislation is.
It's no surprise that a judge in oligarchy-friendly Texas blocked the law.
Except the large businesses are already exempt.
I submitted this info to the feds the other day because a have an LLC (which is extremely small and has never turned a profit) and the government threatened $500 per day fine if the info was not submitted.
Isn't it interesting how the status quo must be protected when it applies to billionaires? Not so much when it applies to the rest of us, especially when it involves health care.
What is Orwellian about knowing who owns a dang company? What are they hiding?
Foreign money of course….
Actually this law has nothing to do with billionaires. It only targets small businesses and exempts entities most likely to be involved in money laundering. Not to mention, it's an attempt by the Fed to insert themselves into state governmental operations.
Can you tell me why I should face penalties of $591/day or a max of $10k/yr and up to two years in federal prison if I forgot to file a piece of paper on a LLC I formed 8 years ago that never has and never will generate revenue? Meanwhile, banks, insurance, and check cashing companies, businesses over $5mil in revenue, (23 exempt types of companies in total) are all exempt from complying...
@dooshnukem32 So you're just mad because... billionaires are exempt? You don't think it's the richest guys who want to hide their interest in businesses? Like... Enron?
Just fill out the paper? How hard can it be?
@@scanmead I had a more fleshed out response, but YT keeps deleting it. So I'll try a summary:
"Isn't it interesting how the status quo must be protected when it applies to billionaires? Not so much when it applies to the rest of us"
"So you're just mad because billionaires are exempt?"
Pick a lane.
@scanmead any freedom surrendered or taken away from a single person damages the whole
Personal Responsibility means it's important nobody knows who is responsible, if you have enough money to make it so.