WHAT BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT

proadAccountId-1002189 • Apr 07, 2023

By: Scott M. Ceurvels, Esq.




ATTENTION ALL BUSINESS OWNERS

 New Federal Information Reporting Requirements to be Imposed on Privately-Held Companies and Their Owners by the U.S. Department of Treasury


Effective January 1, 2024, corporations, limited liability companies and similar entities (which are not publicly-traded companies) must file detailed information concerning the entity and its owners with the U.S. Department of Treasury. Significant penalties will be imposed on entities and owners for noncompliance with this new reporting requirement.


These obligations arise from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, in which Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) as a component of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. This article provides a summary of the CTA, the reporting requirements it creates and the penalties that could be imposed in the event of noncompliance.


Purpose. The CTA is intended serve a variety of purposes, from improving national security and anti-money laundering standards to gathering information about entities within the United States with “hidden owners” and setting a clear and universal standard for incorporation practices.


Reporting Obligation. The primary mechanism by which the CTA seeks to achieve these purposes is the establishment of a national registry of beneficial owners of certain entities, referred to as “reporting companies”, which will be required to file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau within the U.S. Department of Treasury, reports identifying the company’s beneficial owners and information about company applicants. The contents of these reports will be discussed in more detail below.


Reporting Companies. The CTA defines a “reporting company” as any corporation, limited liability company, or other similar entity that is created by filing a document with the Secretary of State or similar office in any state, territory, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or under the laws of a foreign country and registered to do business in the United States.


Beneficial Owners. The CTA defines a “beneficial owner” as an individual who, directly or indirectly:


  • Exercises substantial control over the entity; or
  • Owns or controls not less than 25 percent equity in the entity.


The CTA also excludes certain individuals from the definition of beneficial ownership, including:


  • a minor child (as long as the child’s parent’s or guardian’s information is reported);
  • a person acting as an agent on behalf of another;
  • a person whose control over the company derives from employment, not ownership;
  • a person whose only interest in the company is through a right of inheritance; or
  • a creditor of the company (unless they qualify as a “beneficial owner”)


Company Applicants. The “company applicant” is either:


  • The person who directly files the document that creates the entity for domestic reporting companies, or the document that first registers the entity to do business in the U.S. if the entity is a foreign reporting company; or
  • The person who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document, described above, by another person.


Reporting Requirements. In each report to FinCEN, a reporting company is required to provide the following information for each beneficial owner of the entity:


  • Beneficial owner’s full legal name;
  • Date of birth;
  • Current residential address; and
  • A unique identifying number from an acceptable identification document (driver’s license, passport, etc.).


Company applicants will also be required to provide this information, but may provide a business street address rather than a residential address. However, company applicants will only be required to provide this information for entities formed on or after January 1, 2024.


Additionally, certain “company information” is required in the report, including the reporting companies’:


  • Full legal name;
  • Any trade name;
  • Current address of the principal place of business;
  • Jurisdiction of formation; and
  • Internal Revenue Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) (including an Employer Identification Number) of the reporting company.


Exceptions. The CTA contains a number of exceptions for entities exempt from reporting, including certain regulated industries which already require similar beneficial ownership information reporting, publicly traded companies, certain investment companies, nonprofits and government entities.


There is also a significant exception that applies to “large operating companies” which meet the following conditions and are therefore exempt from the reporting requirement:


  • Employs more than 20 employees;
  • Filed in the previous tax year a tax return demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales; and
  • Has an operating presence at a physical office within the United States.


Effective Date. The date that initial reports to FinCEN are due depends on whether the reporting company is an existing entity or a newly formed one. The final rule implementing the CTA will go into effect on January 1, 2024. Reporting companies in existence prior to this date will have one year, until January 1, 2025, to file their initial reports with FinCEN. Reporting Companies created or registered to do business between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024 must file an initial report within 90 days of creation/registration. Reporting Companies created or registered to do business on or after January 1, 2025 must file within 30 days of creation/registration.


Following the filing of a Reporting Company’s initial report, any changes to the information included in previous filings – except for changes with respect to the company applicant(s) – must be reported within 30 days of such change.


Penalties. Providing false information or failing to report complete information to FinCEN can result in fines of $500 per day up to a maximum civil penalty of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. The CTA does contain a safe harbor from liability for the submission of inaccurate information if the person who submitted the report voluntarily corrects the report within 90 days.


For further information regarding your particular circumstances, or if you need assistance with compliance, reach out to your accountant or contact us at (315) 471-8111.


This article is intended to be for informational and discussion purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice or as a legal opinion on which certain actions should or should not be taken.

DOL: NEW RULES FOR EMPLOYEES vs. CONTRACTORS

05 Feb, 2024
By: Elizabeth M. Maugeri, Esq. The Department of Labor issued a new final rule regarding the distinction between employees and independent contractors on January 10, 2024. This rule, while in some ways is similar to the 2021 Independent Contractor Rule (IRC), mostly departs from the previous iteration. The Department believed the 2021 IRC was not fully in agreement with the framework outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or the courts' interpretation of the FLSA by departing from accepted case law in applying the economic reality test. Thus, on October 13, 2022, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the classification of employees versus independent contractors under the 2021 IRC. The final rule returns to the notion of framing of investment by a worker as its own separate factor, and the most significant factor being whether the work performed by the worker is an integral part of the potential employer’s business. However, the final rule maintains that no one factor is determinative in assessing if a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Additionally, it offers a broader discussion of how scheduling, remote supervision, price setting, and the ability to work for others concurrently should be considered as factors and allows for more consideration of reserved rights, which was minimized in the 2021 IRC. The main purpose of the changes made was to avoid any potential misclassification of workers whether intentional or accidental. The rule maintains that part 795 continues to contain the Department’s general interpretations. After taking comments, the Department published the final rule, which consists of an outline of six, non-determinative, factors for consideration. The factors are: (1) opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill, (2) investments by the worker and the potential employer, (3) degree of permanence of the work relationship, (4) nature and degree of control, (5) extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and (6) skill and initiative. Other relevant factors may be considered on a case-by-case basis. These six factors are meant to be offered as a guide for assessment as to the economic realities of the working relationship. When assessing opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill, the Department implores potential employers to consider if their workers have opportunity for profit or loss that affect the worker’s economic success or failure when performing the work. Factors that may be relevant to this assessment could be whether the worker can meaningfully negotiate the charge or pay for their work, whether the worker accepts or declines jobs on their own, whether the worker makes hiring decisions, or if the worker chooses when or how the work is performed. If the worker does not have these types of opportunities available, then this factor suggests that they may be an employee. When considering the second factor, whether any investments by the worker are capital or entrepreneurial in nature, the assessment asks what the costs are to the worker for performing the job. Notably, some costs that are unilaterally placed on the worker by the potential employer, such as the tools or equipment needed to perform the job, or the cost of the labor do not necessarily suggest the worker performs independently. If the worker has opportunity to do differing types of work, reduce costs, or extend their market reach, this may indicate they are an independent contractor. However, the costs to the potential employer and to the worker should be considered relative to each other. The comparison should be done on investments, such as if the worker is making similar investments as the potential employer, even if on a much smaller scale. The third factor weighs in favor of a worker being an employee when the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer is indefinite, continuous, or exclusive. However, this does not imply that temporary or seasonal workers should be considered independent contractors as the lack of permanence due to operational characteristics to a particular business should be considered in these circumstances. A worker may an independent contractor if the work performed is non-exclusive, project-based, or generally sporadic. Fourth considers the control over the worker and the working relationship that the potential employer has. It may be relevant to consider whether the potential employer sets the worker’s schedule, supervises the work, limits the worker’s ability to work for others, or the sets pricing or rates of the services. Additionally, when a potential employer’s actions in regard to the worker go beyond that is required for compliance with federal, state, or local laws and regulations, this may be suggestive of an employer-employee relationship. The fifth factor is one of the more significant factors, and asks whether the work performed by the worker is integral to the potential employer’s business. This factor does not ask whether the worker themselves are integral, but rather if the work they perform is. This factor will likely consider a worker an employee if the work performed is critical, necessary, or central to the potential employer’s business. The final factor considers whether the worker utilizes specialized skill sets to perform their work and if those skill sets contribute to a business-like initiative. If the worker does not utilize specialized skills or if the worker is dependent on training to learn or utilize specialized skills, then the factor weighs towards the worker being an employee. However, if the worker brings a specialized skill set to the jobs they perform, this does not automatically indicative of the worker being an independent contractor. The worker’s use of the skills in connection with the job itself is what matters in most cases. While the final rule does not act as anything other than a reinforcement of already established legal guidance, it leans more pro-employee than its predecessor. The impact of it is likely to be felt by companies in the gig economy, such as food delivery (i.e., DoorDash, Postmates, UberEats) or transportation mobility services (i.e., Uber, Lyft); freelancers; construction workers; and truckers. Litigation has already been brought forth by associations and individuals in these spaces, who argue that the final rule creates a much vaguer landscape for assessment which will ultimately force independent contractors into unnecessary employment relationships. Decisions by the courts regarding the filed complaints have not yet been issued. The final rule does not impact any other federal, state, or local laws that use other determinative factors for employee classification. This article is intended to be for informational and discussion purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice or as a legal opinion on which certain actions should or should not be taken.
wooden blocks with the word mediation written on them

MEDIATION – IT CAN WORK UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES

21 Nov, 2023
By: Chaim J. Jaffe, Esq. Often times, clients ask why the litigation process is so lengthy. The answer is not always a simple one. The time-frame within which an action is judicially resolved is a function of the court's caseload, the complexity of the matter being litigated and the lawyers' schedules. There are, however, avenues available to litigants in certain circumstances that will allow them to resolve their disputes quicker and, in many cases, more economically. The two most recognized methods of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") are mediation and arbitration. This article will focus on the mediation process. In many instances, parties to an agreement can contractually agree to submit any dispute that may arise to one or more forms of ADR. Parties' whose claims are not controlled by a contract can similarly agree to utilize the ADR process prior to or subsequent to the commencement of a formal court litigated matter. Finally, there are circumstances under which a judge presiding over a court litigated matter can "order" the parties to participate in the ADR process. Mediation is usually the first step in the ADR process, although parties can agree to skip this option and proceed directly to arbitration. Parties who agree to submit their dispute to mediation will agree who the neutral mediator will be. This individual can be an attorney whom counsel for the litigants believes is best qualified to impartially provide an opinion as to the merits of the underlying dispute. In many written contracts, the parties will agree to select the mediator from one of several nationally respected mediation companies. Procedurally, the mediation process is relatively straight forward. Once the parties agree on a neutral mediator, the parties will enter into a written mediation agreement with the mediator. In addition to the parties usually agreeing to equally bear the mediator's fee, the parties will be required to agree to, among other things, the confidentiality of the proceeding, that nothing disclosed during the mediation sessions will be used at trial (if the mediation process is unsuccessful) and that the mediator cannot be called by either party as a witness if the dispute proceeds to a court supervised process. Prior to the commencement of the mediation session, both parties will usually be required to provide the mediator with a confidential written mediation statement, the length of which depends on the complexity of the matter and the mediator's instructions. This pre-hearing submission will usually include a description of the parties, the underlying facts and circumstances of the dispute, the legal issues involved, the parties' respective strengths and weaknesses, the resolution of specific issues by the mediator that the parties believe would be beneficial in resolving the entire dispute and a history of any previous settlement efforts undertaken by the parties. The mediation session can be held wherever the parties agree. Sometimes it can be held at the mediator's office or at the office of the attorney for one of the litigants. It is not uncommon at the beginning of a mediation session for the mediator to gather the parties in the same room for purposes of reviewing the "ground rules" and for allowing each party to make some opening remarks. At the conclusion of this "joint session", the mediator will separate the parties into different rooms. The mediator will then conference separately with each party. The amount of time that the mediator conferences with each party can vary and can often be lengthy. It is not uncommon for parties to wonder why the mediator is spending so much time conferencing with the opposing side. It is during these private conferences that the mediator "goes to work". The mediator, needing to be very good listener, will allow the participants to tell their "side of the story". The mediator will provide the litigants with his/her view of the case, including an opinion as to the legal issues involved and the monetary value of the claim being asserted, where money damages are involved. This process continues until (a) the conclusion of the agreed upon time for the mediation session, (b) the parties have reached a resolution, or (c) the mediator and the parties agree that a resolution cannot be achieved. It is important to emphasize that without express permission from a party, the mediator will not share what was discussed during the private conference with the opposing side. The participants to the mediation need to feel comfortable discussing the matter openly and freely with the mediator. Simply stated, each individual in mediation needs to gain the mediator's trust and vice versa. Once that trust is established, the hope is that the parties will be more amenable to looking at their dispute from a different perspective. What makes mediation an attractive alternative to the court system is that the process is not binding. The parties are free to accept or reject the mediator's recommendation. In some written agreements, mediation might be a required precursor to proceeding to a binding arbitration process. Where no written agreement controls the dispute, the parties are free to proceed with commencing a formal court action or can agree to submit their claim to binding arbitration. Mediation can be a very productive ADR mechanism, the results of which depend on the effectiveness of the selected mediator and the parties' willingness and desire to resolve their dispute quicker and more economically.
Share by: