Category: Corporate law

Disregarded Entity Eligibility for the CTA Large Operating Company Exemption

Summary: As discussed in detail below, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) provides an exemption to its reporting requirements for certain large operating companies (the Large Operating Company Exemption or “LOC Exemption”). In order to qualify for the LOC Exemption, a reporting company must, among other requirements, “have filed a Federal income tax or information return in the United States in the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales.” Certain reporting companies are “disregarded entities” (DREs) for Federal tax purposes and, as such, do not themselves directly have a Federal tax filing obligation or ability. However, based upon guidance from FinCEN and the IRS, support exists for the proposition that the Federal tax filing of a DRE’s sole individual owner or sole parent entity constitutes the filing referenced in the LOC Exemption, and that a DRE reporting company is not, per se, disqualified from utilizing the LOC Exemption.

* * * * *

Certain business entities may elect (including through default attribution under the Internal Revenue Code, (IRC) to be treated as “disregarded” from their individual owner or parent entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such entities include limited liability companies (LLCs) who have a single member (unless such an LLC has elected on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 8832 to be taxed as a “corporation”), or certain wholly owned subsidiaries of “S-corporations” where the parent S-corporation has made an election (referred to as a “Q-Sub election”) on IRS Form 8869 to treat the subsidiary as a qualified subchapter S subsidiary (QSub), whereby such Q-Sub is deemed to be liquidated (for federal tax purposes only) into the parent S-corporation.

These entities, often referred to simply as “disregarded entities” do not, as a distinct, juridical person, file a federal income tax return per se. Instead, DREs have their taxable income and loss reflected, on an aggregated basis, on the federal income tax return of their individual owner or (direct or indirect) parent entity. In fact, when reporting the taxpayer identification number (TIN) of a DRE on an IRS Form W-9 (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification), the DRE provides the federal employer identification number (FEIN) of a parent entity or a social security number (SSN) of an individual owner, rather than a TIN of the DRE itself. This is true even if the DRE has filed for, and has received from the IRS, its own FEIN.

Further to this point, some DREs do not, and are not required to, file for their own FEIN. As such, not all DREs possess their own FEIN or other entity distinct TIN.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in its Frequently Asked Question F.13 issued July 24, 2024, acknowledged this fact as follows:

“An entity that is disregarded for U.S. tax purposes—a “disregarded entity”—is not treated as an entity separate from its owner for U.S. tax purposes. Instead of a disregarded entity being taxed separately, the entity’s owner reports the entity’s income and deductions as part of the owner’s federal tax return. …

Consistent with rules of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the use of TINs, different types of tax identification numbers may be reported for disregarded entities under different circumstances:

  • If the disregarded entity has its own EIN, it may report that EIN as its TIN. If the disregarded entity does not have an EIN, it is not required to obtain one to meet its BOI reporting requirements so long as it can instead provide another type of TIN….
  • If the disregarded entity is a single-member limited liability company (LLC) or otherwise has only one owner that is an individual with a SSN or ITIN, the disregarded entity may report that individual’s SSN or ITIN as its TIN.
  • If the disregarded entity is owned by a U.S. entity that has an EIN, the disregarded entity may report that other entity’s EIN as its TIN.
  • If the disregarded entity is owned by another disregarded entity or a chain of disregarded entities, the disregarded entity may report the TIN of the first owner up the chain of disregarded entities that has a TIN as its TIN.

As explained above, a disregarded entity that is a reporting company must report one of these tax identification numbers when reporting beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.”i

While the above FAQ is not offered by FinCEN specifically in the context of the LOC Exemption, this FAQ does have important implications for the LOC Exemption. In stating that a DRE is not required to obtain an FEIN merely for purposes of having such a number for purposes of filing a beneficial ownership information report (BOIR) under the CTA, and acknowledging that a DRE may provide a SSN of an individual owner, or an FEIN of a parent entity, in satisfaction of the DRE’s requirement to provide a tax identification number as required in FinCEN’s form for filing BOIRs, FinCEN has recognized that the same TIN required by the IRS to be disclosed on a Form W-9 in respect of a DRE is recognized by FinCEN as an appropriate TIN in respect of the DRE for purposes of such entity’s BOIR filing.

As such, the federal tax return filing associated with such a TIN is, therefore, the tax return associated with the DRE reporting such TIN on its BOIR filing. In other words, the fact that an individual owner or a parent entity has made a prior year’s federal tax return filing, which filing includes the U.S. generated gross receipts or sales of the DRE, should be sufficient to satisfy the DRE’s prior year’s federal tax return filing status with respect to such revenue.

As stated in FAQ F.13 above, “a DRE—is not treated as an entity separate from its owner for U.S. tax purposes…, the entity’s owner reports the entity’s income and deductions as part of the owner’s federal tax return…”

* * * * *

With this background, we next analyze the associated implications to a DRE that may qualify for the LOC Exemption.

For purposes of clarity, the requirements for an entity to qualify for the LOC Exemption is that the entity satisfy all three parts of the following three-part test:

“[A]n entity must have more than 20 full-time employees in the United States, must have filed a Federal income tax or information return in the United States in the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales, and must have an operating presence at a physical office in the United States.”ii

The CTA itself provides more specificity in this regard. The CTA provides that the term “reporting company” does not include any entity that:

“(I) employs more than 20 employees on a full-time basis in the United States; (II) filed in the previous year Federal income tax returns in the United States demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales in the aggregate, including the receipts or sales of (aa) other entities owned by the entity; and (bb) other entities through which the entity operates; and (III) has an operating presence at a physical office within the United States.”iii

Although FinCEN has, to date, issued no formal acknowledgment or interpretation with regard to the applicability of the above “revenue prong” specifically in the DRE context, for the reasons outlined above, a reasoned and supported proposition in the DRE situation may be that the “filed Federal income tax or information return” referenced in the LOC Exemption is the federal tax return filing of the reporting company’s individual owner or parent entity, as applicable.

Further to the revenue prong, it appears that if the DRE itself generates U.S. generated gross receipts or sales in excess of five million dollars as reported on the prior year’s federal tax return filing, that the DRE meets the revenue prong of the LOC Exemption. However, based on the above analysis, it may also be a colorable position that the DRE MAY be able to assert that ALL of the U.S. generated gross revenue appearing on the individual owner’s or parent entity’s federal tax return filing may be attributable to the revenue test prong of the LOC Exemption, because all of such revenue is associated with that tax return. This situation is notionally similar to FinCEN’s interpretation that all members of a consolidated corporate taxed group (including each subsidiary) may share in credit for the aggregated gross receipts or sales of the entire group in meeting each of their respective, individual revenue requirements under the LOC Exemption. Here, both the individual and DRE or the parent entity and disregarded subsidiary would be relying upon the same federal tax return, in the individual or partnership tax context.

* * * * *

For purposes of clarity and completeness, we acknowledge a countervailing position espoused by some commentators in the marketplace. That position holds that a DRE is ab initio ineligible to qualify for the LOC Exemption merely because of such reporting company’s status as a DRE (i.e., that it, itself, as a business entity, does not directly cause the filing of its own, independent federal tax return). For the reasons outlined herein, we find this position less compelling than the proposition that disregarded entities have a filed Federal income tax or information return when filed by their individual owner or parent entity.

* * * * *

With respect to exemptions from the reporting obligations under the CTA, each such exemption is “self-executing.” In other words, if an exemption applies to a reporting company, that reporting company has no filing obligation to FinCEN under the CTA. As such, there is no BOIR filing on record documenting that the DRE is relying on its individual owner’s SSN or its parent entity’s FEIN, and, derivatively, the associated federal tax return filing, in establishing compliance with the revenue prong of the LOC Exemption test. We recommend that each DRE making such a reliance-based exemption determination maintain a record of their CTA diligence, analysis and exercise of business judgment made upon a fully informed basis, that underpins the substantiation of the DRE’s satisfaction of all parts of the LOC Exemption test.iv Such substantiation may be needed in the future if FinCEN or one of the DRE’s financial institutions requests substantiation of the DRE’s asserted position that such DRE is not required to file a BOIR under the CTA.

* * * * *

Conclusion. The compliance requirements under the CTA went live on January 1, 2024, and you have only the remainder of this year to take any action to prepare for your compliance position. Now is the time to discuss the CTA with your Polsinelli legal team for guidance.

[i] See FinCEN CTA FAQs F.13 (issued July 24, 2024)(https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs)

[ii] See FinCEN CTA FAQs L.7 (issued April 18, 2024)(https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs)

[iii] U.S.C. § 5336 (a)(11)(B)(xxi).

[iv] Note that there are other factors of the LOC Exemption that must be met in order to rely on that exemption, and such other factors are required to be met directly by the DRE. This discussion is not intended to suggest that the DRE may rely, for example, on employee counts of affiliated entities or impermissible U.S. physical address locations in qualifying for the LOC Exemption.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate Business Organizations section

Proposed Disregarded Payment Loss Rules Create Traps for the Unwary

Be wary: The US Department of the Treasury’s proposed disregarded payment loss (DPL) regulations lay surprising new traps for multinational taxpayers – and those ensnared are unlikely to see what’s coming.

Under the proposed regulations, disregarded payments from a foreign disregarded entity to its domestic corporate parent can give rise to a US income inclusion without any offsetting deduction.[1] This phantom income can be substantial and because the inclusion results from payments that are disregarded as a matter of US tax law, it is sure to be an unwelcome surprise for some taxpayers.

Multinational taxpayers with US corporate entities that hold or acquire interests in foreign disregarded entities should understand the proposed regulations, determine their potential exposure, and consider steps to mitigate potential tax liabilities. This article provides a high-level overview of the proposed regulations and reviews the questions that multinational companies should ask themselves before the traps are sprung.

In Depth

The DPL rules are included in proposed regulations that were published on August 7, 2024.[2] The proposed regulations address, among other topics, how the Section 1503(d) dual consolidated loss (DCL) rules apply in the context of Pillar Two taxes. Though the proposed regulations include both DCL and DPL rules and the DPL rules use similar timing and concepts as the DCL rules, the DPL rules operate separately and apply to a different set of circumstances.[3]

While the DCL rules prevent taxpayers from deducting the same loss twice (once in the United States and once in a foreign jurisdiction), the DPL rules target “deduction/no inclusion” (D/NI) outcomes. In a D/NI scenario, a domestic corporation owns a foreign disregarded entity that makes payments to its domestic corporate parent. The payments are regarded for foreign tax purposes and may give rise to a foreign deduction or loss but are disregarded for US tax purposes, so there is no corresponding US income inclusion. Under foreign tax law, the foreign deduction or loss can be used to offset other foreign income and reduce foreign tax.[4]

To prevent D/NI outcomes, the proposed DPL rules identify certain foreign tax losses attributable to disregarded payments and then require the domestic corporate parent to include a corresponding amount of income for US tax purposes. However, the rules are extremely broad and may require US income inclusions where there is no D/NI outcome or potentially when the foreign disregarded entity is not actually in a loss position from a foreign tax perspective.[5]

As explained below, the rules (1) apply only to domestic corporations that are deemed to consent to their application, (2) may require domestic corporations to include a substantial “DPL inclusion amount” as ordinary income with no offsetting deduction, and (3) will require such inclusion whenever one of two triggering events occur, namely, a “foreign use” of the DPL or a failure to satisfy the rules’ certification requirements.

DEEMED CONSENT

The DPL rules apply only to consenting domestic corporations but set a low bar for what this “consent” requires. Essentially, a domestic corporation consents to the rules if it owns a foreign disregarded entity, with the applicability date depending on when the domestic corporation acquired or checked the box on the foreign disregarded entity.

First, a domestic corporation consents to the DPL rules if it directly or indirectly owns interests in a “specified eligible entity”[6] that makes a check-the-box election on or after August 6, 2024, to be a disregarded entity.[7]

Second, a domestic corporate owner is deemed to consent to the DPL rules if, as of August 6, 2025, the entity directly or indirectly owns interests in a disregarded entity and has not otherwise consented to the rules. To avoid such deemed consent with respect to a disregarded entity, the disregarded entity may instead elect to be treated as a corporation prior to August 6, 2025. Of course, the related consequences of such an election can be significant.[8]

THE DPL INCLUSION AMOUNT

Domestic corporations that consent to the rules may be required to include a DPL inclusion amount as income. For a specified eligible entity or foreign branch of a consenting domestic corporation (such specified eligible entity or foreign branch is referred to as a “disregarded payment entity”), the DPL for a given tax year is the disregarded payment entity’s net loss for foreign tax purposes that is composed of certain items of income and deduction that are disregarded for US tax purposes.[9] The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) provides the following example:

[I]f for a foreign taxable year a disregarded payment entity’s only items are a $100x interest deduction and $70x of royalty income, and if each item were disregarded for U.S. tax purposes as a payment between a disregarded entity and its tax owner (but taken into account under foreign law), then the entity would have a $30x disregarded payment loss for the taxable year.

The DPL inclusion amount is the DPL amount reduced by the positive balance of the “DPL cumulative register.” The DPL cumulative register reflects the cumulative amount of disregarded payment income attributable to the disregarded payment entity across multiple years. The NPRM also provides the following example:

[I]f a disregarded payment entity incurs a $100x disregarded payment loss in year 1 and has $80x of disregarded payment income in year 2, only $20x of the disregarded payment loss is likely available under the foreign tax law to be put to a foreign use. As such, if a triggering event occurs at the end of year 2, then the specified domestic owner must include in gross income $20x (rather than the entire $100x of the disregarded payment loss).

Taxpayers who expect to benefit from the DPL cumulative register should keep in mind that the register only reflects disregarded payments that would be interest, royalties, or structured payments if regarded for US tax purposes. It reflects no other disregarded payments, and it reflects no regarded payments of any sort.

Notably, disregarded payment entities “for which the relevant foreign tax law is the same” are generally combined and treated as a single disregarded payment entity for purposes of the DPL rules. As a result, disregarded payments between entities formed in the same foreign jurisdiction generally should not give rise to DPL inclusions. However, this rule applies only where the entities have the same foreign tax year and are owned by the same consenting domestic corporation or by consenting domestic corporations that are members of the same consolidated group. Further, to ensure the items of foreign income and deduction net against one another within the combined disregarded payment entity, taxpayers should analyze the applicable foreign tax rules to confirm that these items accrue in the same foreign taxable year.

THE TRIGGERING EVENTS

Consenting domestic corporations will be forced to include the DPL inclusion amount as ordinary income if one of two triggering events occurs within a certification period. A certification period includes the foreign tax year in which the DPL is incurred, any prior foreign tax year, and the subsequent 60-month period. These certification periods and triggering events are somewhat similar to the ones used in the DCL rules. In the case of the DPL rules, however, there is no ability to make a domestic use election, as for US tax purposes there is no regarded loss that can be used to offset US tax.

The first triggering event is a “foreign use” of the DPL. A foreign use is determined under the principles of the DCL rules. Thus, a foreign use generally occurs when any portion of a deduction taken into account in computing the DPL is made available to offset or reduce income under foreign tax law that is considered under US tax law to be income of a related foreign corporation (and certain other entities in limited circumstances).

The second triggering event occurs if the domestic corporation fails to comply with certification requirements. Specifically, where a consenting domestic corporation’s disregarded entity has incurred a DPL, the domestic corporation must certify annually throughout the certification period that no foreign use of the DPL has occurred.

HYBRID MISMATCH RULES AND PILLAR TWO

The DPL rules provide that if a relevant foreign tax law denies a deduction for an item to prevent a D/NI outcome, the item is not taken into account for purposes of computing DPL or disregarded payment income. These so-called “hybrid mismatch rules” go some way toward softening the headache the DPL rules are likely to cause taxpayers.

However, foreign countries’ adoption of Pillar Two rules will exacerbate their impact. The rules make clear that for purposes of a qualified domestic minimum top-up tax (QDMTT) or income inclusion rule (IIR) top-up tax, foreign use is considered to occur where a portion of the deductions or losses that comprise a DPL is taken into account in determining net Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules income for a QDMTT or IIR or in determining qualification for the Transitional Country-by-Country Safe Harbor.[10] There is also a transition rule providing that, for this purpose, QDMTTs and IIRs are not taken into account for taxable years beginning before August 6, 2024.[11] This means that calendar year taxpayers who have not consented early to the DPL rules generally should not have a DPL inclusion amount in 2024 solely as a result of Pillar Two taxes, but, depending on their facts, could have an inclusion next year if proactive measures are not taken.

NEXT STEPS

Now is the time for multinational taxpayers to evaluate their risk under the DPL rules. Taxpayers with a domestic corporation in their structure should think carefully before making check-the-box elections to treat foreign entities as disregarded entities.[12] Moreover, taxpayers should determine whether their domestic corporations own any foreign disregarded entities or other specified entities that will cause them to be deemed to consent to the rules as of August 6, 2025.

Multinational taxpayers also should determine whether they have disregarded interest payments, structured payments, or royalties that fall under the purview of the rules. If so, they should consider whether they will be able to avoid future triggering events or if “foreign uses” of DPLs will be unavoidable. One should pay particular attention to Pillar Two, including the Transitional Country-by-Country Safe Harbor, when considering whether there could be a foreign use.

Taxpayers who cannot avoid triggering events should consider whether, and when, to take some defensive measures. Such actions might include winding up foreign disregarded entities that could be subject to the rules, eliminating disregarded payments that would result in DPL income inclusions,[13] or taking other restructuring steps (e.g., electing to treat certain foreign disregarded entities as associations, as the Treasury suggests). When determining whether to take defensive actions, taxpayers should consider the impact that DPL inclusions could have on their overall tax profile, including sourcing issues, foreign tax credits, and the Section 163(j) limitation on business interest deductions. In terms of timing, taxpayers also should consider whether they have until August 5, 2025, to unwind any arrangements subject to the DPL rules or whether it may be prudent to unwind any such arrangements before the end of the year.

Finally, taxpayers concerned about these rules should watch for news about whether they will be issued in final form. The results of the 2024 US presidential election call into question whether the proposed rules will be finalized or, conceivably, shelved.[14] These considerations further complicate the question of whether and when multinational taxpayers should act in response to the rules, particularly as the clock continues to tick toward the deemed consent date of August 6, 2025.

Endnotes

[1] The proposed regulations also can apply to payments made by a foreign disregarded entity to other foreign disregarded entities owned by the same domestic corporate parent.

[2] REG-105128-23.

[3] Although not analyzed in detail here, the proposed changes to the DCL rules are also significant and taxpayers should consider their impact.

[4] For example, the foreign deduction or loss can be used through a loss surrender or consolidation regime.

[5] For example, this may occur when a foreign disregarded entity makes a payment that is included in another foreign disregarded entity payee’s income for foreign tax purposes.

[6] A specified eligible entity is an eligible entity that is a foreign tax resident or owned by a domestic corporation that has a foreign branch.

[7] The rules also can apply to an entity that is formed or acquired after August 6, 2024, and classified without an election as a disregarded entity.

[8] For example, Section 367 may apply to a deemed contribution to the newly regarded foreign corporation.

[9] Generally, these are items of income and deduction from certain disregarded interest, royalties, and “structured payments” within the meaning of the Section 267A regulations.

[10] A limited exception is available in certain cases where the Pillar Two duplicate loss arrangement rule applies.

[11] This favorable transition rule is subject to an anti-abuse provision that can prevent it from applying.

[12] Taxpayers also should give careful thought to any internal restructurings involving foreign disregarded entities.

[13] Eliminating these payments may, of course, result in a corresponding increase in foreign tax liability.

[14] Commentators to the proposed regulations also have raised substantive invalidity arguments under the Loper Bright framework.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on the Treasury, visit the NLR Tax section

Unlike a Fine Wine, Tax Issues Do Not Get Better with Age

In a recent decision, the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) upheld notices of deficiency issued by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the “Department”) totaling approximately $15 million in additional tax, plus interest and penalties for tax years dating as far back as 2002. In the Matter of the Petition of Cushlin Limited, DTA No. 829939 (TAT Oct. 10, 2024). The notices of deficiency came on the heels of an audit that lasted a decade and at the end of which the Department computed additional corporation franchise tax due “based on the information it had available” inasmuch as the information provided by the company over the 10-year audit was “incomplete and/or unsubstantiated.” This case is a cautionary tale for taxpayers and a reminder that tax issues do not get better with age, and delaying or putting off addressing known issues only makes the situation worse in the end.

The company was a corporation organized under the laws of The Isle of Man and was in the business of acquiring and refurbishing three- and four-star hotels. The company also owned equity interests in 13 limited liability companies (“LLCs”) that were doing business in New York. In 2008, the Department began an audit of one of the LLCs and discovered that it had sold real property in New York but did not file a New York State partnership tax return. As a result of its ownership interest in the LLCs, the Department determined that the company was required to file New York corporation franchise tax returns on which it was required to report the gains and losses of the LLCs. The audit of the company initially covered the tax years 2002 through 2006 and was later expanded to include 2007 through 2009.

From 2010 through 2013, the company and the Department communicated multiple times, and the company repeatedly stated that it was preparing tax returns for the audit years for the LLCs and the company and that it required more time to prepare those returns. In 2013, the company provided the Department with draft tax returns for the company and the LLCs. In May 2016, after another three years passed without final tax returns being filed, the Department informed the company that it was assessing additional corporation franchise tax computed based on the amounts in the draft returns plus interest and penalties. In June 2016, the company filed final tax returns for all of the audit years, and the final returns reflected income and deductions that were larger than the amounts previously included in the draft returns.

The Department then issued three information document requests over the next two years that requested information substantiating the deductions claimed on the filed returns. In response to these requests, the Tribunal found that the company “provided only partial responses that lacked any externally verifiable substantiation” and repeated Department requests were “met with partial, inconclusive responses.” Finally, in 2018, the Department issued the notices of deficiency that assessed the amount of additional corporation franchise tax that the Department had previously computed using the company’s draft returns plus updated additional interest and penalties. The company appealed and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) sustained the notices finding: (1) that the company had failed to meet its burden of proving that the notices were incorrect; and (2) that penalties were properly imposed as the company also failed to demonstrate that its failure to file timely returns was a result of reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

The Tribunal agreed with the ALJ, concluding that there was a rational basis for the notices because “[w]orking without returns or supporting documentation more than six years after it began, the [Department] used the available information provided by petitioner, verified by other information contained in the [Department’s] own database, to arrive at a computation of tax due from petitioner.” Moreover, the Tribunal reasoned, the Department provided the company with numerous opportunities to substantiate the amounts that the company reported on its filed returns and the company’s failure to provide substantiating information left the Department with “little choice” but to “use another method to arrive at a determination of tax liability.” Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the ALJ correctly determined that penalties were properly imposed as the company did not meet its burden to demonstrate reasonable cause.

© 2024 Blank Rome LLP
For more on Deficiencies, visit the NLR Tax section

How to Prepare for the Upcoming Filing Deadline Under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)

The January 1, 2025 filing deadline under the CTA for filing beneficial ownership information reports (BOI reports) for reporting companies formed prior to January 1, 2024 is rapidly approaching.

January 1, 2025 Filing Deadline

The CTA became effective on January 1, 2024. If you have filed a BOI report in the last 11 months, it may have been in connection with BOI reporting requirements for entities formed in 2024, because any reporting company formed on or after January 1, 2024 is required to submit its initial BOI report within 90 days of the filing of formation documents. However, the CTA’s BOI report requirements also apply to entities formed before 2024 (as well as to entities formed in 2025 and beyond), and the deadline for filing BOI reports for these entities is fast approaching. BOI reports for entities formed before 2024 must be filed by January 1, 2025, and as further discussed below, BOI reports for entities formed on or after January 1, 2025 must be filed within 30 days of the filing of formation documents.

Compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act

Below are several initial steps to take to prepare for this upcoming deadline:

1. Exemptions. Assuming your entity was formed by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a State or Indian Tribe, your entity may be a reporting company subject to the CTA. If so, review the 23 exemptions to being a reporting company and confirm if any of these exemptions apply to any of your entities.

  • An entity formed as noted above that qualifies for any of these 23 exemptions is not required to submit a BOI report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
  • An entity formed as noted above that does not qualify for any exemption is referred to as a “reporting company” and will be required to submit a BOI report to FinCEN.

2. Entity Records. Review the entity records for each reporting company and confirm that these records reflect accurate, up to date information with respect to the ownership percentages, management, etc. of each entity within the structure.

3. Determine Beneficial Owners. There are two types of reporting company beneficial owners: (i) any individual (natural person) who directly or indirectly owns 25% or more of a reporting company, and (ii) any individual (including any individual who owns 25% or more of the reporting company) who directly or indirectly exercises substantial control over the reporting company. FinCEN expects that every reporting company will be substantially controlled by at least one individual, and therefore will have at least one beneficial owner. There is no maximum number of beneficial owners who must be reported.

4. FinCEN Identifiers. Once the individual(s) who qualify as beneficial owners of any of your reporting companies have been identified, you may obtain FinCEN identifiers for these individuals. Although this step is not required, obtaining a FinCEN identifier will allow you to report an individual’s FinCEN identifier number in lieu of his or her personal beneficial ownership information in the BOI report filed for the reporting company in which he or she has been determined to be a beneficial owner. If/when any beneficial ownership information changes for that individual, the individual will be required to update the beneficial ownership information associated with his or her FinCEN identifier, but each reporting company which this individual is a beneficial owner of will not be required to file a corresponding update (unless an update is required for a separate reason).

5. Prepare to File BOI Reports Sooner Rather than Later. With the January 1, 2025 filing deadline fast approaching and over 32 million entities expected to be impacted by the CTA, we recommend taking the steps to prepare and file BOI reports for your reporting companies as soon as possible. While awareness of the CTA and its requirements continues to grow, people still have questions and concerns regarding how their personal information will be handled, and it can take time to collect the necessary information. Accordingly, identifying any beneficial owners and requesting their beneficial ownership information as soon as possible will help to avoid any last-minute scrambles to prepare and file your reporting companies’ BOI reports. Some have questioned whether BOI reports are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FinCEN has pointed out that these reports are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

6. Reach Out With Questions. We have a team of attorneys, paralegals and support staff that would be happy to help guide you through this process.

The Corporate Transparency Act in 2025 and Beyond

In addition to reporting requirements for reporting companies formed before 2024 and during 2024 as outlined above, all entities formed in 2025 and beyond that qualify as reporting companies will be required to submit BOI reports within 30 days of the filing of formation documents. This is a significantly shorter filing window than what was imposed on entities formed before and during 2024. Accordingly, moving forward, for entities formed in 2025 and beyond, the CTA should be viewed as an additional step in the entity formation process.

The CTA also imposes requirements for updating BOI reports following any changes to the beneficial ownership information reported on a BOI report. Any changes to the beneficial ownership information must be reflected in an updated BOI reports filed with FinCEN no later than 30 days after the date on which the change occurred (note, the same 30-day timeline applies to changes in information submitted by an individual in order to obtain a FinCEN identifier).

© 2010-2024 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
For more on the CTA, visit the NLR Corporate Business Organizations section.

Post Election – Expect Tax Legislation

I. Introduction

With clear Republican victories in the White House and the Senate, and a very slim majority for either side in the House of Representatives, we can expect tax legislation in the coming year. It is expected that the President elect will likely seek to enact his economic agenda as quickly as possible. While Congress may work for bipartisan support of any such legislation, Congressional Republicans and the Administration have the ability to utilize the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation rules (that eliminate the need for 60 votes in the Senate) to pass such tax legislation. We understand that the advance preparation and work for a 2025 reconciliation bill began in Republican Leadership offices over the summer and will continue through the end of the year.

Key to the current discussions of tax policy are provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), a large overhaul of the Internal Revenue Code during President Trump’s first term. The TCJA instituted many significant changes to U.S. tax laws, including cutting the corporate rate, lowering individual income tax rates, and introducing a new deduction for passthrough income. However, due to various reasons, including the arcana of procedural rules of Congress associated with the “reconciliation” procedures, many of these provisions were temporary and scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Exactly which provisions are to be extended, which to be modified, which to be abandoned and how to budget for each of these provisions, is expected to be a part of the legislative agenda next year. It is important to note that, among certain other items, the reduced corporate tax rate enacted in the TCJA is not scheduled to expire.

The most significant expiring provisions of the TCJA are set forth below.

II. Expiring Provisions

A. Changes to non-corporate tax rates, credits, deductions, exemptions and exclusions

The most significant expiring provisions, at least from a political perspective, are the provisions providing significant adjustments to the various tax rates, credits, deductions and similar provisions mostly applicable to individuals, resulting in a broad-scale reversion to the pre-2017 regime for individual taxpayers. The key changes are the following, generally coming into effect in 2026, if not extended or modified:

  • The lower individual income tax rates in the TCJA will expire, and the top marginal rate will go from 37% to 39.6%;
  • The estate and gift tax exclusion amount will be cut in half to $5 million and then adjusted for inflation, so the estate tax exemption will go from approximately $14 million in 2025 to approximately $7 million in 2026;
  • The standard deduction will revert to pre-TCJA levels (almost half the current standard deduction), although the personal exemption amount (which was set to zero under the TCJA) will return to pre-TCJA levels as well;
  • The deduction for miscellaneous itemized expenses, including unreimbursed employee expenses and tax preparation fees will return, and taxpayers will be able to deduct miscellaneous itemized expenses above 2% of adjusted gross income (“AGI”);
  • The phasing-out of itemized deductions for high income taxpayers will return;
  • The TCJA’s cap on the deductibility of state and local tax will expire, so taxpayers will be able to deduct all state and local income taxes (or sales taxes, if selected by the taxpayer) and property taxes—this may be celebrated by higher-income taxpayers in high tax states, but much of the benefit could be tempered by the return of broader scope of the alternative minimum tax discussed immediately below;
  • The alternative minimum tax (the “AMT”), which under the TCJA was limited to a small number of taxpayers, will return to its pre-TCJA form (which applied to a much larger group of individual taxpayers);
  • The deduction limit for cash charitable deductions will revert to 50% of AGI (as compared the current limit of 60% of AGI);
  • The child tax credit will be cut in half so that the maximum credit is $1,000 per child, the refundable portion of the credit will decline from $1,400 to $1,000, and other various adjustments will apply; and
  • The broader mortgage interest exemption available under the pre-TCJA regime will return.

B. Employment-related provisions

Certain employment-related provisions will also expire, and many pre-TCJA rules will return, generally in 2026, if not extended or modified. The most significant changes are the following:

  • The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a credit to employers who hire members of certain groups, such as veterans, recipients of various federal welfare benefit programs, and residents of empowerment zones, would expire;
  • Employers who pay wages to employees on family and medical leave are generally eligible currently for a credit for a percentage of 12 weeks of paid leave wages—this credit would expire;
  • The deductibility of employer-provided meal expenses, currently limited to 50 percent of the meal expense, will be eliminated; and
  • The suspension of the exclusion for employer reimbursements for moving expenses for persons other than certain members of the armed services, will be lifted, at which point taxpayers will be able once again to exclude from income qualifying moving expense reimbursements received from an employer.

C. Various business provisions

Multiple provisions designed to create tax benefits or tax reductions for certain business operations or activities are also amongst the set of expiring or changing provisions. Among the key provisions that will change, generally in 2026, if not extended or modified are the following:

  • The TCJA introduced the qualified business income deduction for 20% of qualified passthrough income, excluding specified service trade or business income, and ordinary REIT dividends—this deduction would expire, so passthrough income and ordinary REIT dividends will be taxed at ordinary income rates with no deduction;
  • The TCJA’s bonus depreciation allowance will continue to decline over the next few years: only a 40% immediate deduction in 2025, 20% in 2026, and no bonus depreciation after 2026 (with some exceptions);
  • The special “opportunity zone” rules—whereby taxpayers could defer capital gains if the gains are reinvested in such an opportunity zone and exclude capital gains income after a 10-year holding period—will expire. Similarly, the empowerment zone program’s tax benefits and the New Markets Tax Credit will also expire.

D. International tax provisions

The TCJA also made some significant revisions to the international and cross-border tax rules, many of which will have changes that will automatically trigger in 2025 or 2026. The most material are:

  • The “base erosion and anti-abuse tax” (the “BEAT”) minimum tax rate will increase to 12.5% (from 10%) and the calculation of the modified income tax (on which the BEAT minimum tax rate applies) will be adjusted to eliminate the taxpayer’s ability to benefit from certain tax credits;
  • The deductions applicable to global intangible low-taxed income (“GILTI”) inclusions for corporations will be reduced (resulting in an increase in the amount of tax imposed on such inclusions)—the deductions for most income will drop from 50% to 37.5%;
  • The deduction on “foreign derived intangible income” (“FDII”) will drop from 37.5% to 21.875%; and
  • The oft extended “look through” rule (which did not originate in the TCJA) for dividends, interest, rents and royalties received by a controlled foreign corporation from another related controlled foreign corporation is set to expire.

As one can imagine on reading this long list of expiring tax provisions (and not even taking account the many more minor provisions also set to expire or change which are not included above), the likelihood of a new tax bill to address these provisions is high. Given the nature of the Congressional rules around reconciliation and the nature of budget and tax negotiations, attempts to extend many of these provisions would likely involve the addition of new revenue-raising provisions. As such, the prospects of tax reform in 2025 are high. Proskauer closely monitors legislative developments, and additional tax blog posts will be made as specific tax proposals are moved through Congress.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on Tax Legislation, visit the NLR Tax section

The CTA Filing Deadline is Approaching. Is Your BOIR Filed Yet?

The clock is ticking—just 49 days remain until the one-year filing deadline for the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)! Entities established before January 1, 2024, must submit a beneficial owner information report (BOIR) by December 31, 2024.

The CTA is a new reporting requirement that came into effect on January 1, 2024. The CTA requires any entity created by or registered to do business by the filing of a document with a secretary of state, or another similar office, to report its information and its beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which is a bureau of the United States Treasury. The goal is to decrease money laundering and fraud.

We previously published advisories on the general application of the CTA and its specific application to entities created for estate planning purposes. The rules and guidelines about which we previously reported are largely unchanged. A reporting company still needs to report its legal name, all trades and d/b/a names, address, and beneficial owners. Beneficial owners are those with substantial control or who own or control 25% or more of the reporting company, directly or indirectly. The reporting company needs to report each beneficial owner’s name, date of birth, residential address, and an identifying number and image from one of four acceptable identification documents.

Although the CTA was declared unconstitutional by a federal district court in Alabama, the ruling only prevents the CTA’s enforcement on the parties directly involved in the case. The court did not issue a nationwide ruling to prevent the law from being enforced. Thus, other companies are expected to continue filing BOIRs. The Alabama case is currently on appeal and oral arguments were held at the end of September 2024.

FinCEN has been periodically updating its Frequently Asked Questions to provide some clarification since the CTA became effective. We outline the most relevant guidance below:

General Updates:

  1. Entities that are created before January 1, 2024, even if dissolved sometime in 2024 before the December 31, 2024, deadline, must still report their information and beneficial owners by December 31, 2024.
  2. Entities that are created in 2024 have 90 days to file the BOIR. Entities created on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 days to file the BOIR. Entities that are created in 2024 but are wound up, dissolved, or otherwise cease to exist must still file the BOIR with FinCEN.
  3. Beneficial ownership is determined in the aggregate. This means that companies need to analyze each beneficial owner to determine if he or she indirectly/directly substantially controls or owns 25% or more of a reporting company. For example, Individual X owns 10% of Company Y. Individual X is also trustee of a trust that owns 20% of Company Y. Individual X needs to be reported as a beneficial owner because he owns an aggregate 30% of the company.
  4. Beneficial owners may now apply for a FinCEN Identifier here. This allows the beneficial owners to report their information to FinCEN directly, obtain an Identifier number, and simply provide the Identifier to those reporting companies of which he or she is a beneficial owner. This prevents a beneficial owner from having to share personal and sensitive information with a company. This also streamlines the process for any change in the beneficial owner’s information. Each beneficial owner can log into FinCEN and simply update the information within 30 days of the change rather than first providing it to the reporting company and then the company filing a new BOIR to update the information.

a. In order to create a FinCEN Identifier, an individual will have to create a login.gov account. This is the account that the federal government is using to streamline many of its services, such as, global entry and applying for federal jobs.

5. Reporting companies may complete and submit a BOIR online here. A company could also submit a PDF of the report at the same link if it chose to complete a paper copy. There is no fee to submit online. There are also many vendors offering a service to assist with the process and submit the report for a fee.

Real Estate/Corporate Updates:

6.FinCEN clarified that the subsidiary exemption applies when a subsidiary’s ownership interests are entirely controlled or wholly owned, directly, or indirectly, by any of the following types of exempt entities: (1) Securities reporting issuer; (2) Governmental authority; (3) Bank; (4) Credit union; (5) Depository institution holding company; (6) Broker or dealer in securities; (7) Other Exchange Act registered entity; (8) Investment company or investment adviser; (9) Venture capital fund adviser; (10) Insurance company; (11) State-licensed insurance producer; (12) Commodity Exchange Act registered entity; (13) Accounting firm; (14) Public utility; (15) Financial market utility; (16) Tax-exempt entity; or (17) Large operating company. Further, if a reporting company’s ownership interests are controlled or wholly owned by more than one exempt entity, the reporting company may still qualify for the subsidiary exemption if the entities are unaffiliated; however, every controlling or owning entity must itself be an exempt entity in order for the reporting company to qualify for the subsidiary exemption.

Trusts and Estates Updates:

7.If there is a corporate trustee, the reporting company will be reporting those individual beneficial owners that indirectly own or control at least 25% of the ownership interests of the reporting company through the ownership in the corporate trustee. This will be determined by multiplying the percentage of ownership of the corporate trustee with the trust’s ownership/control of the reporting company. For example, if Individual A owns 70% of the corporate trustee of a trust, and that trust holds 30% of the reporting company, Individual A holds or controls 21% of the reporting company (70% x 30 = 21). If Individual A owned 90% of the corporate trustee, then it would own/control 27% of the reporting company (90% x 30 = 27) and the company must report Individual A as a beneficial owner. There may be other beneficial owners if someone else at the corporate trustee exercises substantial control over the reporting company.

A reporting company may submit the corporate trustee’s information in lieu of each beneficial owner’s information only if all of these conditions are met:

a. The corporate entity is an exempt entity from the reporting requirements.

b. The individual owns or controls 25% of the reporting company only through the corporate trustee.

c. The individual does not exercise substantial control over the reporting company.

A company can obtain its own FinCEN Identifier when it submits an initial BOIR for its beneficial owner(s). This way, such company may be reported as a beneficial owner, such as a corporate trustee that meets the above requirements. For example, when LLC A reports Individual A as its beneficial owner, LLC A has the option of clicking a button to obtain its own FinCEN Identifier.

8. An individual who has the power to remove a trustee, remove and replace a trustee, and/or appoint an additional trustee is deemed to have substantial control through the power to change the person who makes decisions for the trust, and thereby, the reporting company. While this is not explicit in the Frequently Asked Questions, it is consistent with FinCEN’s position that someone who has the power to remove a senior officer of a reporting company is a beneficial owner.

While this is an extensive list, it is by no means an exhaustive list, and various circumstances not discussed above may change how the CTA applies in a particular case.

Copyright 2024 Goulston & Storrs PC.
For more on the CTA, visit the NLR Corporate Business Organizations section

SEC Brings Multiple Enforcement Actions Relating to Beneficial Ownership and Other Reporting Obligations

On September 25, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) announced that it had instituted and settled enforcement actions under Section 13(d), Section 13(g) and Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended, the Exchange Act). The actions involved 21 individuals and entities that allegedly had failed to timely file Schedule 13D or 13G to report beneficial ownership of greater than 5% of the registered equity securities outstanding and/or amendments to such reports, and/or to timely file Form 3, 4 or 5 to report ownership of, and transactions in, registered equity securities by executive officers, directors and greater-than-10% beneficial owners (collectively, insiders). As part of the settlements, individual respondents agreed to pay civil monetary penalties ranging from $10,000 to $200,000, and entities agreed to pay civil penalties ranging from $40,000 to $750,000. As part of the same set of settlements, the SEC also instituted and settled two enforcement actions against public companies for allegedly causing certain of their insiders’ Form 3, 4 or 5 filing failures or for failing to report such filing delinquencies. Just a week earlier, the SEC had announced the institution and settlement of enforcement actions under Section 13(f) and Section 13(h) of the Exchange Act against 11 institutional investment managers that allegedly had failed on a timely basis to file one or more quarterly Form 13F reports and/or periodic Form 13H reports.

The Bottom Line

The foregoing actions are part of an SEC enforcement initiative aimed at ensuring compliance with ownership disclosure and other reporting rules. Insofar as the beneficial ownership and insider actions are concerned, the most recent set of settlements suggest a possible willingness on the SEC’s part to bring enforcement actions even for minor and technical violations. Insofar as the institutional investor enforcement actions, the recent “sweep” appears to mark the first such broad action by the SEC. Notably, for two of the sanctioned institutional investment managers that were based outside the US and where the managers self-reported their errors to the SEC, no monetary penalties were assessed. A third institutional investment manager did not pay a monetary penalty for its Form 13H filing delinquency, which had been self-reported to the agency. Further, the SEC’s public announcement of the settlements indicated that the SEC staff used data analytics to identify the delinquent filings. The SEC has occasionally used various technological solutions to search for late filings and other violations of law in the vast EDGAR database, and as artificial intelligence and similar applications become more widespread and economical, we expect the SEC to make greater use of automated techniques in the future as part of its ongoing filing review process.

The Full Story

5% Beneficial Owners, Insiders and Public Company Issuers

Under Section 13(d)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13d-2(a) promulgated thereunder, any person who acquired beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a public company’s stock must, within 10 calendar days of the relevant acquisition,[1] file an initial set of disclosures on Schedule 13D with the SEC. The beneficial owner must then file updates with the SEC to report any material changes to its position or other facts disclosed in prior filings. Certain investors (mostly passive ones) are eligible to file a simplified set of disclosures on Schedule 13G. The deadline to file a Schedule 13G was also within 10 calendar days of acquiring more than 5% beneficial ownership, but certain institutional investors were permitted to defer disclosing their passive holdings on Schedule 13G until 45 days after the end of the calendar year.[2]

Under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3 promulgated thereunder, officers and directors of public companies, and any beneficial owners of greater than 10% of stock in a public company, were (and currently are) required to file initial statements of holdings on Form 3 either within 10 calendar days of becoming an insider or on or before the effective date of the initial registration of the stock. Such insiders are then obligated to keep this information current by reporting subsequent transactions on Forms 4 and 5 (in most instances, within two business days of any change). In addition, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Item 405 of Regulation S-K promulgated thereunder require issuers to disclose information regarding delinquent Section 16(a) filings by insiders in their annual reports.

Here, the SEC alleged that 14 persons, who were obligated to file Forms 3/4/5, failed to timely file or update such reports required under Section 16(a), that two public companies caused some of those late filings and/or did not disclose the late filings when required, and that 18 persons who were obligated to file and/or amend Schedules 13D/13G failed to do so timely as required under Sections 13(d) and (g). In most of the non-issuer settlements, there appear to have been repeated failures over multiple issuers, sometimes over several years. However, not all persons settling with the SEC had failures that were repeated or otherwise egregious. Each of two of the matters that settled for $25,000 or less alleged only a few violations (and one of those included two alleged Schedule 13D violations that arguably are supported by a compliance and disclosure interpretation but not by the actual wording of Section 13 and its implementing rules). By contrast, among the 11 beneficial ownership settlements that the SEC announced nearly a year ago, none were below $66,000. This suggests that the SEC may once again be bringing less serious enforcement actions and pursuing even minor infractions.

Institutional Investment Managers

Under Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13f-1 promulgated thereunder, entities with investment discretion over at least $100 million worth of specified US publicly-traded securities (and certain securities exercisable for or convertible into such securities) (institutional investment managers) are required to file quarterly Form 13F reports detailing their ownership of such securities regardless of the percentages owned. Reports can omit certain de minimis positions, though the de minimis level is set quite low so relatively few positions are typically excluded from Form 13F on this basis. The $100 million threshold was originally set in 1975, is not indexed for inflation and has not been adjusted since. Each report for a calendar quarter must be filed no later than 45 calendar days after the end of the preceding quarter.

Under Section 13(h) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13h-1 promulgated thereunder, persons who trade US publicly-traded securities equal to or exceeding two million shares or $20 million during any calendar day, or 20 million shares or $200 million during any calendar month (collectively, large traders) are required to file required Form 13H reports with the SEC. Unlike the beneficial ownership reports and Form 13F, Form 13H reports are confidential and viewable only by the SEC. While the specific reporting thresholds for Form 13F and Form 13H are different, most (but not all) large traders will also be institutional investment managers. But most institutional investment managers will not necessarily be large traders.

The SEC alleged that nine institutional investment managers failed to timely file required Form 13F reports—often over a long period of years. Those nine firms (not including one which was part of the beneficial owner settlements discussed above but had also not filed Form 13F for a number of years) agreed to pay in aggregate more than $3.4 million to settle those cases. Notably, two additional settling parties (both institutional investment managers located outside the US) were not assessed penalties relating to their delinquent Form 13F’s because they self-reported their failure to report directly to the SEC.

Two of the parties settling Form 13F failures also were charged with failing to timely file required Form 13H reports. Because both of these parties self-reported their Form 13H filing failures, neither was assessed a penalty relating to Section 13(h).

[1] The deadlines described here were in effect during the relevant periods in the settled actions. Effective on and after February 5, 2024, the initial Schedule 13D must be filed within five business days of the relevant acquisition.

[2] The deadlines described here were in effect during the relevant periods in the settled actions. Effective on and after September 30, 2024, the filing deadline for an initial Schedule 13G (other than for certain institutional investors) is within 5 business days of the relevant acquisition; certain institutional investors are permitted to delay their initial filing of Schedule 13G to 45 calendar days after the end of relevant calendar quarter.

Copyright © 2024, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more on SEC Enforcement Actions, visit the NLR Securities SEC section.

The Corporate Transparency Act Requires Reporting of Beneficial Owners

The Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) became effective on January 1, 2024, requiring many corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and other entities to register with and report certain information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury (“Treasury”). The CTA marks a substantial increase in the reporting obligations for many U.S. companies, as well as for non-U.S. companies doing business in the United States.

IN SHORT:
Most corporate entities are now required to file a beneficial ownership information report (“BOI Report”) with FinCEN disclosing certain information about the entity and those persons who are “beneficial owners” or who have “substantial control.” BOI Reports for companies owned by trusts and estates may require significant analysis to determine beneficial ownership and substantial control.

The CTA imposes potential penalties on entities that fail to file BOI Reports with FinCEN by the prescribed deadline. For entities formed prior to January 1, 2024, a BOI Report must be filed by January 1, 2025. For entities formed on or after January 1, 2024, but prior to January 1, 2025, a BOI Report must be filed within 90 days of the entity’s formation. For entities formed on or after January 1, 2025, a BOI Report must be filed within 30 days of the entity’s formation.

Entities formed after January 1, 2024, must also report information regarding “company applicants” to FinCEN. If certain information within a BOI Report changes, entities are required to file a supplemental BOI Report within 30 days of such change.

While Winstead’s Wealth Preservation Practice Group will not be directly filing BOI Reports with FinCEN, our attorneys and staff will be available this year, by appointment, to answer questions regarding reporting requirements if scheduled by Friday, November 22, 2024. We strongly recommend that company owners begin analyzing what reporting obligations they may have under the CTA and schedule appointments with their professional advisors now to ensure availability.

BACKGROUND:
Congress passed the CTA in an effort to combat money laundering, fraud, and other illicit activities accomplished through anonymous shell companies. To achieve this objective, most entities operating in the United States will now be required to file BOI Reports with FinCEN.

The CTA applies to U.S. companies and non-U.S. companies registered to operate in the United States that fall within the definition of a “reporting company.” There are certain exceptions specifically enumerated in the CTA, which generally cover entities that are already subject to anti-money laundering requirements, entities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other federal regulatory bodies, and entities that pose a low risk of the illicit activities targeted by the CTA.

REPORTING OBLIGATIONS:
Entity Information. Each reporting company is required to provide FinCEN with the following information:

  1. the legal name of the reporting company;
  2. the mailing address of the reporting company;
  3. the state of formation (or foreign country in which the entity was formed, if applicable) of the reporting company; and
  4. the employer identification number of the reporting company.

Beneficial Owner and Applicant Information. Absent an exemption, each reporting company is also required to provide FinCEN with the following information regarding each beneficial owner and each company applicant:

  1. full legal name;
  2. date of birth;
  3. current residential or business address; and
  4. unique identifying number from a U.S. passport or U.S. state identification (e.g., state-issued driver’s license), a foreign passport, or a FinCEN identifier (i.e., the unique number issued by FinCEN to an individual).

DEFINITIONS:
Reporting Company. A “reporting company” is defined as any corporation, limited liability company, or any other entity created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a State. Certain entities are exempt from these filing requirements, including, but not limited to:

  1. financial institutions and regulated investment entities;
  2. utility companies;
  3. entities that are described in Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code;
  4. inactive, non-foreign owned entities with no assets; and
  5. sizeable operating companies that employ more than 20 full-time employees in the United States that have filed a United States federal income tax return in the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales.

A reporting company that is not exempt must register with and report all required information to FinCEN by the applicable deadline.

Beneficial Owner. A “beneficial owner” is defined as any individual who, directly or indirectly, (i) exercises substantial control over such reporting company or (ii) owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of such reporting company.

Substantial Control. An individual exercises “substantial control” over a reporting company if the individual (i) serves as a senior officer of the reporting company, (ii) has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or the similar body governing such reporting company), or (iii) directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company, including by reason of such individual’s representation on the board (or other governing body of the reporting company) or control of a majority of the reporting company’s voting power.

Company Applicant. A “company applicant” is any individual who (i) files an application to form the reporting company under U.S. law or (ii) registers or files an application to register the reporting company under the laws of a foreign country to do business in the United States by filing a document with the secretary of state or similar office under U.S. law.

DEADLINES:
Entities Formed Before January 1, 2024. A reporting company that was formed prior to the effective date of the CTA (January 1, 2024) is required to register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report by January 1, 2025.

Entities Formed After January 1, 2024, but Before January 1, 2025. A reporting company that was formed after the effective date of the CTA (January 1, 2024), but before January 1, 2025, must register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report within 90 calendar days of formation.
Entities Formed After January 1, 2025. A reporting company formed after January 1, 2025, will be required to register with FinCEN and file its initial BOI Report within 30 calendar days of formation.

Supplemental BOI Reports. If any information included in a BOI Report changes, a reporting company must file a supplemental report with FinCEN within 30 days of such change. This includes minor changes, such as an address change or an updated driver’s license for a beneficial owner or someone who has substantial control over the reporting company.

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE:
The CTA and Treasury regulations impose potential civil and criminal liability on reporting companies and company applicants that fail to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. Civil penalties for reporting violations include a monetary fine of up to $500 per day that the violation continues unresolved, adjusted for inflation. Criminal penalties include a fine of up to $10,000 and/or two years in prison.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TRUSTS AND ESTATES:
When a trust or estate owns at least 25% of a reporting company or exercises substantial control over the reporting company, the BOI Report must generally include (i) the fiduciaries of the trust or estate (i.e., the trustee or executor), (ii) certain individual beneficiaries, and (iii) the settlor or creator of the trust. If the trust agreement gives other individuals certain rights and powers, however, such as a distribution advisor, trust protector, or trust committee member, the reporting company may also be required to disclose such individuals’ information in the BOI Report. Similarly, if a corporate trustee or executor is serving, the BOI Report must contain the names and information of the employees who actually administer the trust or estate on behalf of the corporation. Due to these nuances, it is often necessary to engage in additional analysis when a trust or estate is a beneficial owner of or has substantial control over a reporting company.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:
The CTA and its BOI Report filing requirement are still relatively new, and although FinCEN continues to publish additional guidance, many open questions remain. All companies formed or operating in the United States should carefully review whether they are required to file an initial BOI Report in accordance with the CTA, and take further steps to identify all individuals who must be included in such BOI Report.

© 2024 Winstead PC.
For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Requirements, visit the NLR Financial Institutions Banking section.

DOJ Announces Changes to Guidance on Corporate Compliance Programs, Updates on Whistleblower Program

In an address this week to the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri of the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division, highlighted several updates relevant to corporate compliance programs, including the DOJ’s new whistleblower programs and incentives.

Sufficient Compliance: Updated Areas to Consider

The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (“ECCP”) is the compass by which the DOJ measures the efficacy of a corporation’s compliance program for potential credit or mitigation in the event an organization is potentially subject to prosecution.[1] Ms. Argentieri highlighted several key updates to the ECCP that the DOJ will now consider when evaluating whether a corporation’s compliance program is “effective” and thus deserving of credit and/or mitigation of criminal penalties.

These new factors include whether:

  • the resources and technology with which a company does business are applied to its compliance program, and whether its compliance program fully considers the risks of any technologies it utilizes (such as generative AI)[2];
  • the company had a culture of “speaking up” and protecting those who report on corporate misdeeds;
  • a company’s compliance department had access to adequate resources and data to perform its job effectively; and
  • a company learned from its past mistakes—and/or the mistakes of other companies.

Encouraging Self-Reporting: Presumptive Declination and Reduced Penalties

In her remarks, Ms. Argentieri stated that the previously announced Whistleblower Awards Program[3] had so far been successful in the eyes of the DOJ, but did not point to any specific case or outcome. Likely, it is too soon for the public to see the fruits of the program, given its nascent state and the time that usually elapses between the initiation of an investigation and its resolution. The DOJ appears to be stating, though, that it is receiving and following up on whistleblower reports already.

This new policy encouraging whistleblowing through financial incentives, however, was combined with an amendment to DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, which provides that there is a presumptive declination to prosecute should a company make a disclosure of wrongdoing within 120 days of receiving an internal report of alleged misconduct and before DOJ contacts the company regarding that matter. In short, DOJ is seeking to incentivize a “race to DOJ” to report potential misconduct – perhaps before the company can even confirm whether the allegation is credible.[4]

Organizations that opt to not take the early self-disclosure route can still reduce any criminal penalties they may face by up to half by fully cooperating with the DOJ in its investigation. Considerations DOJ will factor in when evaluating whether an organization “fully cooperates” include, among other things, how timely the cooperation was and if the company took appropriate remedial action (such as improving compliance programs and disciplining employees). The DOJ continues to emphasize the importance of clawing back compensation and/or reducing compensation and bonuses of wrong-doers (if not also terminating them).[5]

Tipping the Scales

In sum, these programs are clearly intended to materially alter the disclosure calculus of whether a company should disclose misconduct by putting quantifiable incentives on the side of timely disclosure and cooperation, namely declination. Combined with the DOJ’s updates to the ECCP, these programs attempt to bring clarity and consistency to the world of corporate criminal penalties (and possibly how to avoid them altogether). Companies are well-advised to review their existing compliance programs in light of these new incentives and guidance from the DOJ to ensure that they address the new factors enumerated by the DOJ, but also account for increased incentives for corporate whistleblowers.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines also define what constitutes an “effective compliance and ethics program” for credit under the guidelines. U.S.S.G. §8B2.1.

[2] This is not the first time, and unlikely to be the last, where DOJ has emphasized the use of AI to enhance corporate compliance. See Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Remarks at the University of Oxford on the Promise and Peril of AI (Feb. 14, 2024).

[3] Under the Criminal Division’s whistleblower pilot program (and like those of other U.S. Attorney’s Offices who have thus far adopted similar programs), whistleblowers are financially rewarded—through criminal forfeiture orders—for bringing forward information on specific alleged violations, so long as that person first reports the misconduct to the company and DOJ has not already learned of it. The Criminal Division’s Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosure for Individuals also provide culpable individuals who report to receive non-prosecution agreements in exchange for reporting their own conduct and the conduct of the company.

[4] The “race to DOJ” incentivized by these programs may indeed alter the corporate disclosure calculus—by moving up the date for any disclosure in light of the threat that an employee or third-party, aware of any investigation, may choose to report the matter to DOJ. Likewise, it may also change the nature of the internal investigation in ways to limit knowledge of the investigation early-on, like limiting early interviews until documents and data can be reviewed and analyzed.

[5] Indeed, DOJ will permit companies to earn a dollar-for-dollar reduction of a criminal penalty for each dollar a company successfully claws back from a wrong-doer to further incentivize companies to seek to claw back compensation paid.

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on the Corporate Compliance Programs, visit the NLR Corporate Business Organizations section

Supreme Court Holds Life Insurance Proceeds Paid to Closely-Held Corporation to Fund Buy-Sell Agreement Increases Estate Tax on Deceased Shareholder’s Estate

In Connelly v. U.S., 144 S.Ct. 1406 (June 6, 2024), the United States Supreme Court upheld an estate tax deficiency of $889,914 in a decision that will impact many families and closely-held businesses. A Buy-Sell Agreement is often used to ensure that a closely-held company will remain within the family after the deaths of its owners or otherwise ensure the continuity of the business after an owner’s death. Many Buy-Sell Agreements, such as the one in Connelly, provide that upon the death of an owner, the surviving owner has the option to purchase the deceased owner’s interest in the company, and if the surviving owner declines, the company must redeem the deceased owner’s interest. To ensure that the company will have funds for the redemption, the company will often obtain life insurance for its owners. For years, planners thought it possible to structure such an arrangement so that life insurance proceeds would not increase the value of the company for estate tax purposes. However, in Connelly, the Court held that the life insurance proceeds paid to a corporation upon the death of a shareholder do increase the value of the corporation’s stock for estate tax purposes and that the corporation’s obligation under a Buy-Sell Agreement to redeem the deceased shareholder’s shares does not offset the life insurance proceeds. Under the Court’s decision, the type of entity does not appear to be relevant, and the holding will equally apply to partnerships and limited liability companies. Thus, if any Buy-Sell Agreement is structured as a redemption funded with entity-owned life insurance, the insurance proceeds may increase the value of the deceased business owner’s interest for estate tax purposes.

In Connelly, two brothers, Michael and Thomas Connelly, owned a business supply corporation. Michael owned 77.18% of the company, and Thomas owned 22.82% of the company. The brothers entered into a Buy-Sell Agreement as described above. The brothers ignored provisions under the agreement that required them to value the company annually and obtain an appraisal upon a shareholder’s death. After Michael’s death in 2013, Thomas and Michael’s son simply agreed to a redemption price of $3 million for Michael’s shares. The company used $3 million of life insurance proceeds to redeem Michael’s shares, and Thomas, as Michael’s executor, reported the value of Michael’s shares as $3 million on Michael’s estate tax return without completing an appraisal. Upon audit of the estate tax return, Thomas belatedly obtained an appraisal that determined the fair market value of 100% of the company at Michael’s death to be $3.86 million, excluding the life insurance proceeds. Based on the valuation of the company at $3.86 million, Thomas argued that the value of Michael’s ownership interest was $3 million ($3.86 million x 77.18%).

Connelly rejects the position of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Blount v. Comm’r., 428 F. 3d 1338 (CA11 2005), that the life insurance proceeds paid to a company are offset by the company’s contractual obligation to redeem a deceased owner’s interest. Rather than allowing an offset for the redemption obligation, the Court focused on the value of the company before and after the redemption. If the entire company was worth $3.86 million, as claimed in Connelly, the value of Michael’s 77.18% would be $3 million and the value of Thomas’ 22.82% would be $860,000. The Court reasoned that upon redemption of Michael’s shares, Michael’s estate would receive $3 million, leaving Thomas with 100% ownership of a company worth $860,000. However, Thomas’ argument meant that post-redemption, 100% of the company that Thomas owned was worth $3.86 million. The Court refused to accept that a company which pays out $3 million to redeem shares was worth the same overall amount before and after the redemption. The Court found that the company’s value should be increased from $3.86 to $6.86 million, accounting for the insurance proceeds, increasing the value of Michael’s ownership from $3 to approximately $5.3 million ($6.86 million × 77.18%). The net result was an additional estate tax of $889,914.

Although the implications of Connelly are wide, there are limitations to the Court’s decision. Connelly will have little impact on a business owner whose estate is well under the estate tax exemption, which is currently $13.61 million for each individual and scheduled to be decreased by 50% in 2026. In addition, the Court did not address the application of Section 2703 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides in relevant part that the value of a deceased owner’s interest in a business may be established by a Buy-Sell Agreement if certain requirements are met. Perhaps the Court did not review Section 2703 because the shareholders did not follow the valuation terms of the Buy-Sell Agreement and arbitrarily determined the redemption price instead. But because Section 2703 was not addressed in Connelly, it may yet be possible to avoid its impact with a properly structured and adhered to, Buy-Sell Agreement.

The Court also explicitly stated in a footnote that the holding does not mean that a redemption obligation can never decrease a corporation’s value. The Court implies that if a company is required to sell an operating asset to redeem shares, the redemption obligation might reduce the company’s value.

The Court acknowledged that a differently structured Buy-Sell Agreement can avoid the risk that insurance proceeds would increase the value of a deceased shareholder’s shares. Specifically, the Court referenced a “cross-purchase agreement” in which business owners, rather than the company, agree to purchase the others’ ownership upon death using proceeds from non-company owned policies. In addition to avoiding the Connelly result, a cross-purchase agreement provides an increased tax basis for the surviving owners who purchase a deceased owner’s interests. However, the more owners a business has, the more complicated a life insurance-funded cross-purchase will be. Other options to avoid the Connelly result may include a life insurance partnership or limited liability company or creatively structured split-dollar arrangements.

After Connelly, all business owners with Buy-Sell Agreements funded with entity-owned life insurance, or with other entity-owned insurance vehicles (split-dollar plans, key-person life insurance, etc.) should evaluate and consider restructuring their arrangements. In some cases, the restructuring of a Buy-Sell Agreement may require the transfer of life insurance policies which raises other tax issues, such as in-kind corporate distributions, S corporation elections, transfer-for-value rules, and incidents of ownership.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more news on Life Insurance and Estate Taxes, visit the NLR Estates & Trusts section.