Sponsored By

Federal Court Rules Corporate Transparency Act UnconstitutionalFederal Court Rules Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional

But for now, the law remains in effect for everyone except the plaintiffs in this case.

+1
Adam Diederich, Evgeny Magidenkoand 1 more

March 5, 2024

2 Min Read
Treasury Department
Copyright Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images

In National Small Business United, d/b/a National Small Business Association, et al. v. Janet Yellen, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01448-LCB (N.D. Ala.), a federal court recently ruled that the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is unconstitutional. In a lengthy opinion issued on March 1, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama explained that the CTA may be a “smart law” that pursues “sensible and praiseworthy ends,” but it violates the U.S. Constitution. 

The court held that the CTA was authorized neither by Congress’ foreign affairs or taxing powers nor by its powers under the Commerce Clause or under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

CTA Requirements

The CTA is a far-reaching federal law that became effective on Jan. 1. The CTA requires many companies (called “reporting companies”) to disclose information about the individuals who, directly or indirectly, exercise substantial control over them or own or control at least 25% of the ownership interests in them (called “beneficial owners”), as well as about certain so-called “company applicants,” to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. FinCEN is a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury that collects and analyzes information to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and other financial crimes.

Related:Pragmatic Approaches To the Corporate Transparency Act

Court’s Decision

In this decision, the Northern District of Alabama granted the motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff National Small Business Association on behalf of its members. An NSBA member who owns two small businesses subject to the CTA is also a plaintiff in this lawsuit. The NSBA is a non-profit corporation that represents and protects the rights of small businesses across the country, including its approximately 65,000 members. The court’s ruling prohibits FinCEN, its employees and other federal agencies from enforcing the CTA against the NSBA’s members. FinCEN confirmed in a March 4 notice that it won’t enforce the CTA against the plaintiffs in this lawsuit (including members of the NSBA as of March 1) while the court’s order “remains in effect.”

CTA Still in Effect for Now

Although the court generally found that the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on congressional power and is therefore unconstitutional, the court’s order doesn’t appear to prohibit FinCEN from enforcing the CTA against entities that aren’t members of the NSBA. It’s expected that the U.S. Department of Justice will appeal this decision and will seek to pause the effect of this decision pending the result of any appeal. In the meantime, the CTA appears to remain in effect for all reporting companies that aren’t NSBA members. Companies that are subject to the CTA (particularly if they were formed in 2024 and have a 90-day window after formation in which to file their initial reports) may find it prudent to continue to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements until there’s greater clarity on the status of the law.

Related:FinCEN Extends CTA Reporting Deadline

 

 

About the Authors

Adam Diederich

Partner, ArentFox Schiff

Adam helps clients resolve disputes involving:

  • ownership and control of privately held businesses, including derivative and direct claims, breach of fiduciary duty claims, requests to inspect books and records, and breach of shareholder agreements and LLC agreements;

  • sports, media, and entertainment law;

  • restrictive covenants (noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements), trade secrets, and confidential information; and

  • business torts and complex contract claims.

His experience also includes drafting restrictive covenant agreements, representing professional associations, Freedom of Information Act requests, student discipline hearings, professional liability (malpractice) claims, trust and estate litigation, and animal law.

Adam strives to understand each client’s business to help advance their legal and business interests. He helps his clients solve problems through advice and counseling, mediation, arbitration, and litigation in state and federal courts. He has experience representing plaintiffs and defendants at all stages of litigation, from temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to summary judgment, arbitration hearings, bench and jury trials, and appeal.

Before beginning his law career, Adam taught fourth grade as a Teach For America corps member.

Evgeny Magidenko

Partner, ArentFox Schiff, ArentFox Schiff

Gene is a tax attorney who advises individual and business clients nationwide and internationally on tax planning, tax controversies, and transactional tax matters.

Kevin Matz

Partner, ArentFox Schiff LLP

Mr. Matz is a partner at the law firm of ArentFox Schiff LLP in New York City. His practice is devoted principally to domestic and international estate and tax planning and he is a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (“ACTEC”) for which he chairs ACTEC’s Business Planning Committee. Mr. Matz is also a co-chair of the Taxation Committee of the Trusts and Estates Law Section of the New York State Bar Association.  In addition, Mr. Matz is a certified public accountant (in which connection he currently chairs the Trust and Estate Administration Committee of the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants), and writes and lectures frequently on estate and tax planning topics. He can be reached by email at [email protected] or by phone at 212-745-9576.

You May Also Like