It will wind up being like the BATF and Form 4473... fail to cross a "T" or dot an "i" and it's off to jail for you.
Posted on 01/23/2025 2:21:59 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The Corporate Transparency Act, which requires businesses to disclose ownership information, was blocked by a federal judge as beyond Congress’s authority.
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a federal law requiring companies to report information about their owners in an effort to combat money laundering, the drug trade and terrorism.
The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The ruling was provisional, reinstating the law while a challenge to it moves forward.
Critics say that the law, the Corporate Transparency Act of 2021, is needlessly burdensome, a threat to privacy and an unconstitutional federal intrusion on matters that have been historically regulated by states.
The challenge to the law was brought by a firearms dealer, a technology company, a dairy, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi and the National Federation of Independent Business, which was the lead plaintiff in the first major challenge to the Affordable Care Act. As in that case, the plaintiffs in the challenge to the transparency law argued that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not authorize Congress to regulate what they said was inaction rather than economic activity.
The challengers added that the law covers tens of millions of small entities, including homeowners’ associations and family trusts. Complying with the law will collectively cost tens of billions of dollars, they said.
Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Federal District Court in Sherman, Texas, blocked the law nationwide, saying that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This Court is obsequious beyond measure to Congress. Like with Obamacare, if Congress did it this Court will rubber stamp it.
” in an effort to combat money laundering, the drug trade and terrorism.”
Sure... that’s what they are doing.
I can guess how Amy Conehead Barrett and Irish baby buying closet homo Roberts voted.
This law is not unconstitutional as it applies to activities that clearly fall within interstate commerce. The law requires the filing of information with the federal government which already is collected by many states and which most banks require if a company is setting up a bank account. The law was passed with both Dem and Republican support. It may not be necessary but it is not unconstitutional.
And ironically, it was an Obama-appointed judge who found it unconstitutional.
Government opens the borders to terrorists and refuses to punish real criminals.
Then they use the subsequent crime as an excuse to treat ordinary citizens like criminals.
It will wind up being like the BATF and Form 4473... fail to cross a "T" or dot an "i" and it's off to jail for you.
That doesn’t seem to comport with this part of the story:
“...the plaintiffs in the challenge to the transparency law argued that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not authorize Congress to regulate what they said was inaction rather than economic activity.
The challengers added that the law covers tens of millions of small entities, including homeowners’ associations and family trusts. Complying with the law will collectively cost tens of billions of dollars, they said.”
My accountant wanted $100 to do the form for my LLC.
I did it myself online. But I will tell you that it was convoluted BS. effin nightmare. Heavy fines for making a simple mistake because their damned instructions made no damned sense.
Being ruled by the regulatory state is just communism under another name
Personally I consider ANY LAW that requires a person to HIRE a GOVERNMENT APPROVED PROFESSIONAL to comply with said law Rupugnant to the Constitution and should be Abolished or make it a FELONY for ANY Public Employee to hire Professionals to comply with laws.
No she didn’t. Whether the law is Constitutional was not the question before the court. The question was whether the law should be stayed while it was appealed by the gov’t. The majority (wrongly I believe) decided it could remain in effect as challenges moved through the court system.
Its constitutionality notwithstanding, I can confirm that compliance is a pain in the ass.
One of the most memorable quotes in all of Ayn Rand’s work.
It would be best to get rid of all such laws, of course.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.