Accounting
DOJ takes CTA beneficial ownership information fight to Supreme Court
The Justice Department filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to lift the injunction on the beneficial ownership information reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act after a
The 2021 law requires businesses to report on their true ownership to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network starting Jan. 1, 2025 as a way to deter illicit activity by shell companies, but given the legal back and forth, the requirement has been delayed by FinCEN. In the Justice Department’s
In the application, the DOJ explains the rationale for the beneficial ownership requirement. “Congress found that malign actors often conceal their ownership of corporations and other entities to facilitate illicit activities such as money laundering, tax fraud, human and drug trafficking, and the financing of terrorism,” said the filing. “Congress determined that requiring companies to report information about their owners would enable the government to detect and prosecute financial crimes, discourage the use of shell companies to conduct illicit activity, and facilitate the government’s national-security and intelligence efforts.”
The application comes from Attorney General Merrick Garland, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and FinCEN director Andrea Gacki.
The CTA requires organizations to report to the federal government information about their beneficial owners, that is, individuals who exercise substantial control over the entity or own or control 25% of its ownership interests. The covered entities have to report their beneficial owners’ names, dates of birth, addresses, and unique identifying numbers (e.g., driver’s license or passport numbers).
The DOJ pointed to several reasons why the Supreme Court should lift the injunction, noting that the injunction was too broad and went beyond the original plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. “Respondents—four entities subject to the Act, an individual affiliated with one of those entities, and a membership organization—brought this suit to challenge the Act’s constitutionality,” said the DOJ. “The district court granted respondents a preliminary injunction, holding that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Act, on its face, exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers. Although respondents had sought relief only on their own behalf, the court entered a universal injunction purporting to enjoin the Act itself and prohibiting the enforcement of the Act even against nonparties. A motions panel of the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction, but days later a merits panel vacated the stay and reinstated the universal injunction without any analysis of the government’s likelihood of success on the merits or the relative harms to the parties. This Court should stay the district court’s injunction.”
The plaintiffs in the case are Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc.; Data Comm for Business, Inc.; Libertarian Party of Mississippi; Mustardseed Livestock, L.L.C.; National Federation of Independent Business, Inc.; and Russell Straayer.
The DOJ argued that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of the claim. “The Act’s reporting requirements are important to the government in preventing, detecting, and prosecuting crimes such as money laundering, tax fraud, and the financing of terrorism,” said the DOJ. “The requirements therefore fall comfortably within Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate economic activities (here, the anonymous operation of business entities) that substantially affect interstate commerce. The requirements are also necessary and proper to effectuate several of Congress’s enumerated powers, including the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and to collect taxes, as well as Congress’s powers with respect to foreign affairs. Even if there might be outlier circumstances in which the Act could be thought to exceed Congress’s powers, the Act complies with the Constitution in most of its applications, which suffices to defeat respondents’ facial challenge.”
The DOJ argued that the district court issued its universal injunction after two other district courts held that the CTA is likely constitutional and had denied preliminary-injunction motions raising substantially similar constitutional claims. A third district court denied a preliminary-injunction motion because the plaintiffs had failed to show irreparable harm. The DOJ acknowledged that one district court held that the CTA violates the Constitution, but issued an injunction covering only the plaintiffs in that case, specifically the members of the National Small Business Association.
The DOJ provided further reasons why the Supreme Court should issue a stay on the district court’s universal injunction, saying it “irreparably harms the federal government in multiple ways.”
“It prevents the government from executing a duly enacted Act of Congress, impedes efforts to prevent financial crime and protect national security, undermines the United States’ ability to press other countries to improve their own anti-money laundering 4 regimes, and severely disrupts the ongoing implementation of the Act,” said the DOJ. “By contrast, the Act imposes only minimal burdens on respondents. At a minimum, this Court should narrow the district court’s vastly overbroad injunction. A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it. The district court violated that principle by issuing a universal injunction purporting to enjoin the Act itself and forbidding the enforcement of the Act even against non-parties.”
The DOJ believes the case will need to be decided by the Supreme Court eventually and said the application for a stay could be treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari. “”Several Members of this Court have recognized that such universal relief contradicts Article III and established equitable principles and have urged clarification of these principles in an appropriate case—but the Court’s antecedent determination on a threshold procedural issue or the merits in prior cases has obviated the need to resolve the remedial question,” said the DOJ. “Because the lower courts need guidance on the propriety of universal injunctions, this Court may additionally wish to treat this application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment presenting the question whether the district court erred in entering preliminary relief on a universal basis.”
“The DOJ argues that this case would provide an ideal vehicle for addressing the lawfulness of universal relief,” wrote Ed Zollars, owner of Thomas, Zollars & Lynch, in Kaplan Financial Education’s
Jody Padar, an author and speaker known as “The Radical CPA,” and Katie Tolin, a growth strategist for CPAs, together launched a training and technology platform called XcelLabs.
XcelLabs provides solutions to help accountants use artificial technology fluently and strategically. The Pennsylvania Institute of CPAs and CPA Crossings joined with Padar and Tolin as strategic partners and investors.
“To reinvent the profession, we must start by training the professional who can then transform their firms,” Padar said in a statement. “By equipping people with data and insights that help them see things differently, they can provide better advice to their clients and firm.”
The platform includes XcelLabs Academy, a series of educational online courses on the basics of AI, being a better advisor, leadership and practice management; Navi, a proprietary tool that uses AI to help accountants turn unstructured data like emails, phone calls and meetings into insights; and training and consulting services. These offerings are currently in beta testing.
“Accountants know they need to be more advisory, but not everyone can figure out how to do it,” Tolin said in a statement. “Couple that with the fact that AI will be doing a lot of the lower-level work accountants do today, and we need to create that next level advisor now. By showing accountants how to unlock patterns in their actions and turn client conversations into emotionally intelligent advice, we can create the accounting professional of the future.”
“AI is transforming how CPAs work, and XcelLabs is focused on helping the profession evolve with it,” PICPA CEO Jennifer Cryder said in a statement. “At PICPA, we’re proud to support a mission that aligns so closely with ours: empowering firms to use AI not just for efficiency, but to drive growth, value and long-term relevance.”
The accountant the world urgently needs has evolved far beyond the traditional role we recognized just a few years ago.
The transformation of the accounting profession is not merely an anticipated change; it is a pressing reality that is currently shaping business decisions, academic programs and the expected contributions of professionals. Yet, in many areas, accounting education stubbornly clings to outdated, overly technical models that fail to connect with the actual demands of the market. We must confront a critical question: If we continue to train accountants solely to file tax reports, are we truly equipping them for the challenges of today’s world?
This shift in mindset extends beyond individual countries or educational systems; it is a global movement. The recent announcement of the
The CIMA/CGMA proposal for 2026 is not just a curriculum update; it is a powerful manifesto. This new program positions analytical thinking, strategic business partnering and technology application at the core of accounting education. It unequivocally highlights sustainability, aligning with IFRS S1 and S2, and expands the accountant’s responsibilities beyond mere numbers to encompass conscious leadership, environmental impact and corporate governance.
The current changes in the accounting profession underscore an urgent shift in expectations from both educators and employers. Today, companies of all sizes and industries demand accountants who can do far more than interpret balance sheets. They expect professionals who grasp the deeper context behind the numbers, identify inconsistencies, anticipate potential issues before they escalate into losses, and act decisively as a bridge between data and decision making.
To meet these expectations, a radical mindset shift is essential. There are firms still operating on autopilot, mindlessly repeating tasks with minimal critical analysis. Likewise, many academic programs continue to treat accounting as purely a technical discipline, disregarding the vital elements of reflection, strategy and behavioral insight. This outdated approach creates a significant mismatch. While the world forges ahead, parts of the accounting profession remain stuck in the past.
The consequences of this shift are already becoming evident. The demand for compliance, transparency and sustainability now applies not only to large corporations but also to small and mid-sized businesses. Many of these organizations rely on professionals ill-equipped to drive the necessary changes, putting both business performance and the reputation of the profession at risk.
The positive news is that accountants who are ready to thrive in this new era do not necessarily need additional degrees. What they truly need is a commitment to awareness, a dedication to continuous learning, and the courage to step beyond their comfort zones. The future of accounting is here, and it is firmly rooted in analytical, strategic and human-oriented perspectives. The 2026 curriculum is a clear indication of the changes underway. Those who fail to think critically and holistically will be left behind.
In contrast, accountants who see the big picture, understand the ripple effects of their decisions, and actively contribute to the financial and ethical health of organizations will undeniably remain indispensable, anywhere in the world.
Congressional Republicans are siding with Donald Trump in the messy divorce between the president and Elon Musk, an optimistic sign for eventual passage of a tax cut bill at the root of the two billionaires’ public feud.
Lawmakers are largely taking their cues from Trump and sticking by the $3 trillion bill at the center of the White House’s economic agenda. Musk, the biggest political donor of the 2024 cycle, has threatened to help primary anyone who votes for the legislation, but lawmakers are betting that staying in the president’s good graces is the safer path to political survival.
“The tax bill is not in jeopardy. We are going to deliver on that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Friday.
“I’ll tell you what — do not doubt, don’t second guess and do not challenge the President of the United States Donald Trump,” he added. “He is the leader of the party. He’s the most consequential political figure of our time.”
A fight between Trump and Musk exploded into public view this week. The sparring started with the tech titan calling the president’s tax bill a “disgusting abomination,” but quickly escalated to more personal attacks and Trump threatening to cancel all federal contracts and subsidies to Musk’s companies, such as Tesla Inc. and SpaceX which have benefitted from government ties.
Republicans on Capitol Hill, who had — until recently — publicly embraced Musk, said they weren’t swayed by the billionaire’s criticism that the bill cost too much. Lawmakers have refuted official estimates of the package, saying that the tax cuts for households, small businesses and politically important groups — including hospitality and hourly workers — will generate enough economic growth to offset the price tag.
“I don’t tell my friend Elon, I don’t argue with him about how to build rockets, and I wish he wouldn’t argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it,” Johnson told CNBC earlier Friday.
House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington told reporters that House lawmakers are focused on working with the Senate as it revises the bill to make sure the legislation has the political support in both chambers to make it to Trump’s desk for his signature.
“We move past the drama and we get the substance of what is needed to make the modest improvements that can be made,” he said.
House fiscal hawks said that they hadn’t changed their prior positions on the legislation based on Musk’s statements. They also said they agree with GOP leaders that there will be other chances to make further spending cuts outside the tax bill.
Representative Tom McClintock, a fiscal conservative, said “the bill will pass because it has to pass,” adding that both Musk and Trump needed to calm down. “They both need to take a nap,” he said.
Even some of the House bill’s most vociferous critics appeared resigned to its passage. Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, who voted against the House version, predicted that despite Musk’s objections, the Senate will make only small changes.
“The speaker is right about one thing. This barely passed the House. If they muck with it too much in the Senate, it may not pass the House again,” he said.
Trump is pressuring lawmakers to move at breakneck speed to pass the tax-cut bill, demanding they vote on the bill before the July 4 holiday. The president has been quick to blast critics of the bill — including calling Senator Rand Paul
As the legislation worked its way through the House last month, Trump took to social media to criticize holdouts and invited undecided members to the White House to compel them to support the package. It passed by one vote.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune — who is planning to unveil his chamber’s version of the bill as soon as next week — said his timeline is unmoved by Musk.
“We are already pretty far down the trail,” he said.
Mastering Bookkeeping Tasks During Peak Business Seasons
Forgotten 401(k) fees cost workers thousands in retirement savings
‘What’s the point’ of saving money
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
The Essential Practice of Bank and Credit Card Statement Reconciliation
Are American progressives making themselves sad?
-
Blog Post1 week agoCommon Bookkeeping Challenges and Solutions for Small Businesses
-
Economics1 week agoWhy the president must not be lexicographer-in-chief
-
Finance1 week agoThis is why Jamie Dimon is so gloomy on the economy
-
Economics1 week agoAmerica has found a new lever to squeeze foreigners for cash
-
Economics1 week agoWhy would Texas Republicans object to conservative, pro-family developers?
-
Personal Finance1 week agoU.S. birth rate drop outpaces policy response, raising future concerns
-
Accounting1 week agoSteinhoff fraud trial moved to South Africa’s high court
-
Economics1 week agoGerman inflation May 2025