Since my most recent post on February 20 concerning CTA, the Feds have issued two more announcements, described below.  The chaos in this Administration, and the confusion it breeds both here at the law office end and without question among clients, is enormous.  And many of you have made your CTA filings, or incurred legal fees in starting the work.

On February 27 FinCEN (the Federal agency administering the CTA filings required for most US businesses which are not very large) announced that no fines would be levied even if filings were not made by the then-deadline of March 21; and there also was a promise of new regulations to prioritize filings only in cases of significant law enforcement or national security risks.  At that point, wise counsel was to be ready to file as there was no clear guidance as to what was covered and who would in fact be exempted or at least given a free pass.

Then on Sunday March 2 it was announced that even after the new rules take effect there will be no fines or penalties!  Sort of incredible, why would anyone file?  Further the intent is to limit the filings only to “foreign reporting companies.”  Putting aside why even these companies would file if there is no consequence to not filing, it is not clear at least to me  how to understand “foreign reporting company”– does that mean only foreign companies with a location in the US or does it include subsidiaries owned offshore?  English language literally would cover only the former, but I refuse to offer a view (nothing in these posts is legal advice, but I would not even offer a thought) as to what is meant.

The cost to American business by original CTA rules was in some cases significant.  To some of our clients with many US-based subsidiares owned or controlled directly or indirectly overseas, the cost has been greater.  What  overseas business people think of our government must be “interesting” although US businesses seeing the changing general landscape probably are immune to being surprised by anything.

More later if there is a later….

I REPEAT: ABOVE IS ACKNOWLEDGED AS UNCLEAR FROM MY END AND IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE IN SPADES!