Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday November 05 2019, @01:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the pro-or-con dept.

— The United States House of Representatives passed a bill tonight that would put America's small business owners' personally identifiable information at unprecedented risk and cost them billions of dollars and millions of hours in paperwork. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 (H.R. 2513), which passed the House 249-173 attempts to shift a responsibility from big banks to America's smallest businesses, saddling them with an additional 131.7 million hours of paperwork at a cost of $5.7 billion over the first 10 years.

"The House today not only shouldered millions of small business owners with a tremendous compliance burden but put their personally identifiable information at serious risk," said NFIB President & CEO Juanita D. Duggan. "The reporting requirements and devastating financial penalties will affect only small businesses, from farmers to franchisees to the mom-and-pop retail shop down the street. It is a big-government solution in search of a small-business problem, and we will not cease our efforts to stand up for small businesses against this serious threat."

The Corporate Transparency Act of 2019 is legislation that would require only those small corporations and limited liability companies with 20 or fewer employees to complete and submit annual paperwork which includes the personally identifiable information of each business owner to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network upon the creation of the business and periodically for the life of the business. Failure to comply is a federal crime with civil penalties up to $10,000 and criminal penalties of up to three years in prison.

https://www.nfib.com/content/press-release/homepage/house-deals-blow-to-millions-of-small-businesses-by-passing-corporate-transparency-act/

While everyone is distracted by "impeachment", this is what the government is doing.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2513
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/proposed-corporate-transparency-act-2019-would-require-corporations-and-limited


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:51AM (17 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:51AM (#916680) Journal

    Complying with the law is not a burden,

    Another counterexample is going to court to defend yourself from frivolous charges or lawsuits. It's complying with the law, but in a way that is a burden.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:45PM (16 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday November 06 2019, @04:45PM (#916861)

    The first point was "shouldering a burden" - the counterpoint was "if you were dodging existing legal taxes, starting to pay them is not shouldering a burden, it is participating in the system which protects your business and enables it to operate in the first place."

    Frivolous lawsuits, vexatious litigation, and even blatant patent trolls are like pickpockets and embezzling executives, illegal, but a real part of the landscape that is an unfortunate burden upon those who they affect - though much less of a burden than the absence of a legal framework altogether.

    I'll grant you another point: personal injury lawsuits do appear to be out of control - if by no other metric than the amount of advertising they generate. They seem to be able to render judgements for more or less whatever the defendant has in exchange for merely inconvenient injuries. There ought to be (new) laws restricting and normalizing what "pain and suffering" is really worth - the jury of our peers isn't handling this case well at all.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:42AM (15 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:42AM (#917155) Journal

      "if you were dodging existing legal taxes, starting to pay them is not shouldering a burden, it is participating in the system which squanders your tax money and makes war frivolously on millions of people around the world.

      I can play that game too. Particularly, since most parties subject to this reporting requirement aren't dodging existing legal taxes and thus, don't meet the initial condition of your if-then assertion.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:31PM (14 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:31PM (#917320)

        Most parties subject to this reporting requirement are shells, fictitious entities of little or no net productivity.

        Cry for your local tyrant business owner if you must, meanwhile: the shell corporation which Ricky Derringer set up in Nevada to hide his ownership of the land next to mine is going to have to report his beneficial ownership in, well, nothing other than a shell, and the poor slob is going to have to fill out a form to do it, probably himself since he's not quite rolling in the Rock'n'Roll hoochie coo dough the way he used to.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @12:20AM (13 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @12:20AM (#917654) Journal

          Most parties subject to this reporting requirement are shells, fictitious entities of little or no net productivity.

          And that is relevant how? Shells can continue to deliver false information. Consequences will only happen long after the money disappears.

          Meanwhile people like my brother, who merely maintains a corporation in case they resume contracting at a future time, have one more landmine to worry about, just because some thugs want greater control of small businesses.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @02:49AM (12 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 08 2019, @02:49AM (#917700)

            And that is relevant how?

            Well - if, of those 30 million businesses, 25 million are shells, then let's all shed a tear for the shell managers shall we?

            Meanwhile people like my brother, who merely maintains a corporation in case they resume contracting at a future time, have one more landmine to worry about, just because some thugs want greater control of small businesses.

            Not feeling much sympathy for your brother, either. Corporations that are on the shelf collecting dust should die. For that matter, the whole LLC structure needs to come into some alignment with the personal responsibility of direct ownership - just because you've paid off some lawyers to set up your straw man should not absolve you of any personal responsibility - maybe personal responsibility needs to tone down for individuals who have not set up a LLC, but the disparity just rewards the lawyers and the people who pay them off ahead of time, for insurance, or protection, or whatever you want to call it.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @04:33AM (11 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @04:33AM (#917756) Journal

              Well - if, of those 30 million businesses, 25 million are shells, then let's all shed a tear for the shell managers shall we?

              The point here is that shell managers can easily handle this regulation. They're probably handling thousands at a time. It's easy for them to automate. The real problem as usual will the people with one corporation who aren't well versed in yet another land mine in the path.

              Once again, I find it remarkable how much you and others defend yet more crap regulation. It doesn't solve a problem and it just creates problems.

              Not feeling much sympathy for your brother, either. Corporations that are on the shelf collecting dust should die.

              Of course not. You're not affected. My brother is affected. There's overhead to creating a corporation and to the various IP associated with corporations. It's easier to pay the annual fee to renew the corporation's registration than attempt to recreate it at a future date.

              For that matter, the whole LLC structure needs to come into some alignment with the personal responsibility of direct ownership

              Then it would not be an LLC structure. We've already established that the whole point of your approach is to prevent some hypothetical evasion of regulation and taxes. Creating duplicate structures that do the same things have no point except to create loopholes.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @02:05PM (10 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 08 2019, @02:05PM (#917853)

                Then it would not be an LLC structure

                Have I mentioned yet how little regard I hold for "fake people" in our legal system. Corporations, for the most part, should simply die. For someone who abhors complexity in regulation, you show a lot of love for these legal structures whose purpose is to dodge personal responsibility.

                If you are responsible, YOU should be held responsible. LLCs don't make decisions on their own. If an LLC ends up "responsible" to someone, it should not simply be able to shrivel up and die to dodge that responsibility.

                Now, $1M judgements for "pain and suffering" resulting from a slippery floor - those need to end, but LLCs aren't the answer.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 08 2019, @03:10PM (9 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 08 2019, @03:10PM (#917881) Journal

                  Have I mentioned yet how little regard I hold for "fake people" in our legal system.

                  So what? Your livelihood exists because of that minor legal fiction. Separating capital from legal responsibility is a huge innovation that helped make the modern world. We can't be legally responsible for everything in the world and it's foolish to try.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 08 2019, @04:35PM (8 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday November 08 2019, @04:35PM (#917926)

                    We can't be legally responsible for everything in the world and it's foolish to try.

                    Actually, with tort reform and insurance, we could. Without tort reform, real insurance would be too expensive.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:16AM (7 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:16AM (#918131) Journal

                      Actually, with tort reform and insurance, we could.

                      I hope the unicorns get that fixed soon.

                      And limiting liability means you don't need that reform and insurance in order to function. It's a superior approach.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:50AM (6 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:50AM (#918153)

                        It's a superior approach.

                        It's a superior approach for those who have taken the time and paid the payola to get the protection, like your brother.

                        Rights should not have to be purchased, says the man who's about to pay a lawyer - twice - for power of attorney for an 18 year old child who cannot handle their own affairs.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @05:33AM (5 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @05:33AM (#918169) Journal

                          It's a superior approach for those who have taken the time and paid the payola to get the protection, like your brother.

                          I notice you're advocating adding more time and cost to that payola for frivolous reasons. Not feeling it over here.

                          Rights should not have to be purchased, says the man who's about to pay a lawyer - twice - for power of attorney for an 18 year old child who cannot handle their own affairs.

                          Rights aren't being purchased. You're paying someone competent so this process doesn't get fucked up. Now, having said that, maybe those regulations should be changed or curbed - though obtaining power of attorney for an adult shouldn't be an easy thing.

                          I find it interesting how you whine about paying for rights in a thread where you propose to increase the cost of paying for those rights. Not the first owned goal.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:42PM (4 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:42PM (#918231)

                            I notice you're advocating adding more time and cost to that payola for frivolous reasons.

                            I'm advocating adding trivial amounts of time and cost to that payola - trivial for PERSONS using the corporate structure for your purported legitimate reasons - reasons which should be addressed in other fashion, but since this is the system we're stuck with for now, if you're running a real business, this is a trivial bit of overhead - less than regeneration of an invoice for a customer who changed address and never told you.

                            When the majority of uses of a legal structure are for abuse, those abusive uses need to be curbed - and if the "legitimate" users of the structure have to pay a bit extra - in this case 20 minutes of labor - boo hoo.

                            obtaining power of attorney for an adult shouldn't be an easy thing.

                            You haven't met this adult. $800 minimum legal fees seems a bit steep for something that 30 seconds to 20 minutes in front of a judge should cure.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:24PM (3 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:24PM (#918247) Journal

                              I'm advocating adding trivial amounts of time and cost

                              No, you're not.

                              When the majority of uses of a legal structure are for abuse, those abusive uses need to be curbed - and if the "legitimate" users of the structure have to pay a bit extra - in this case 20 minutes of labor - boo hoo.

                              The abuses may need to be curbed, but not the legitimate uses.

                              obtaining power of attorney for an adult shouldn't be an easy thing.

                              You haven't met this adult. $800 minimum legal fees seems a bit steep for something that 30 seconds to 20 minutes in front of a judge should cure.

                              What's steep about it? $800 seems pretty damn cheap for exposure to the legal system and what you're trying to do. And you did pay, right? Means you agree too even though you whine about it.

                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:59PM (2 children)

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:59PM (#918300)

                                What's steep about it? $800 seems pretty damn cheap for exposure to the legal system and what you're trying to do.

                                Well, let's see, you're whining about 20 minutes of self-labor for your brother with zero cash out of pocket which is addressed at curbing fraud, funding of illegal activities, etc. All so your brother doesn't have to let his unused LLC structure lapse and re-create it if he ever has a legitimate need for it.

                                I'm whining about $800 to declare something that is self-evident after a 20 minute interview (actually, most people will have their mind made up in 30 seconds or less) - he is not and will not contest the decision (I'd be thrilled if he would, but no such luck), and has been in a fully supported environment in the public school systems since he was 3, specifically transferred from the "level 2 high support" program to a "level 1 self contained facility" because level 2 can't handle him.

                                And you did pay, right? Means you agree too even though you whine about it.

                                Not yet, still seriously considering letting the legal system have him and they can work it out amongst themselves when the shit hits the fan. 18th birthday is in 60 days, still on the fence about whether I want this responsibility or not.

                                The abuses may need to be curbed, but not the legitimate uses.

                                And what's your brilliant plan to curb the abuses that involves less than 20 minutes of labor from the legitimate users of the system? Got any Unicorns and Rainbows to address that one? Not that I doubt there's a better solution, our legislators being the social-economic geniuses that they are, but I don't hear you with anything better beyond: leave things the screwed up way they are, because any change might slightly inconvenience someone who "doesn't deserve" it.

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:20PM (1 child)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:20PM (#918375) Journal

                                  Well, let's see, you're whining about 20 minutes of self-labor for your brother with zero cash out of pocket

                                  So you claim. How does that information magically transport itself to the appropriate bureaucracy. How does my brother document that? How does my brother CYA in case someone decides to audit it? Better to just not do it in the first place.

                                  I'm whining about $800 to declare something that is self-evident after a 20 minute interview

                                  And your hypocrisy is noted. So what?

                                  And what's your brilliant plan to curb the abuses that involves less than 20 minutes of labor from the legitimate users of the system? Got any Unicorns and Rainbows to address that one? Not that I doubt there's a better solution, our legislators being the social-economic geniuses that they are, but I don't hear you with anything better beyond: leave things the screwed up way they are, because any change might slightly inconvenience someone who "doesn't deserve" it.

                                  Just not waste the time in the first place. Law enforcement has tools for this.

                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:59PM

                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:59PM (#918425)

                                    How does my brother CYA in case someone decides to audit it?

                                    Well, I'm sure some cop did something heinous to all of us at some point in our lives, but, for the most part, that $10K fine is directed at people who are abusing the system, and like a million+ other laws on the books that you, I, and your brother are in violation of every day, it's _probably_ not going to be the basis for future crucifixion. Unless you piss off "the man," and if you never had a cop do something heinous to you just because he felt like it, then you don't really have an appreciation for how exposed you are every single day to all sorts of bad "legal shit" that just doesn't happen because you're not out there being an irritating jackass to people who get off on ruining your day.

                                    Better to just not do it in the first place.

                                    The Senate may take care of this, but only if it's not costing them some bargaining chip they value more.

                                    Just not waste the time in the first place.

                                    Too late, your elected officials are pushing it now - probably in some small way as a response to the Panama Papers, which, IMO, needs a lot more response than this. Are they listening to your position, or mine, at the moment? Seems like mine.

                                    Law enforcement has tools for this.

                                    Apparently not enough, in the opinion of the legislature.

                                    --
                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]