Connect with us

Accounting

FinCEN rule removes CTA’s BOI requirements for US companies

Published

1 year ago

on

The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an interim final rule Friday removing the requirement  under the Corporate Transparency Act for U.S. companies and people to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.

In the interim final rule, FinCEN revised the definition of “reporting company” in its implementing regulations to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (formerly known as “foreign reporting companies”). FinCEN also exempts entities previously known as “domestic reporting companies” from BOI reporting requirements.

The move reflects an announcement earlier this month in which FinCEN said it would no longer enforce the CTA, nor enforce any penalties or fines associated with beneficial ownership reporting under the existing regulatory deadlines, but left open the possibility of enforcing it against foreign companies, saying it planned to issue a proposed rulemaking that would narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only. 

Under the interim final rule, all entities created in the United States — including those previously known as “domestic reporting companies” — and their beneficial owners will be exempt from the requirement to report BOI to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of a “reporting company” and do not qualify for an exemption from the reporting requirements must report their BOI to FinCEN under new deadlines, detailed below. These foreign entities, however, will not be required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners, and U.S. persons will not be required to report BOI with respect to any such entity for which they are a beneficial owner.

Upon the publication of the interim final rule, the following deadlines will apply for foreign entities that are reporting companies:

  • Reporting companies registered to do business in the U.S. before the date of publication of the interim final rule must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
  • Reporting companies registered to do business in the U.S. on or after the date of publication of the IFR have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.

FinCEN said Friday it’s accepting comments on this interim final rule and intends to finalize the rule this year.

If finalized, the rule would exempt more than 99% of entities from reporting their ownership information under the statute, according to advocacy groups.

“Treasury’s proposal contradicts decades of evidence that sanctions evaders, tax cheats, and fentanyl traffickers rely on anonymous U.S. companies to stash their illicit cash in the U.S. financial system,” said Ian Gary, executive director of the FACT Coalition, in a statement Friday. “This decision is tantamount to nullifying the statute and is very unlikely to be upheld in court. Treasury must take these legal and constitutional considerations into account as part of the rulemaking.”

The interim final rule is designed to formalize unusually abrupt announcements made earlier this month by the Treasury Department and President Trump that the Treasury would halt enforcement of the CTA, advocates noted. The announcements were made despite the fact that the law passed with the support of the first Trump administration.

“District attorneys around the country strongly support the Corporate Transparency Act as an indispensable tool for combating the fentanyl epidemic, transnational crime, terrorism financing, and other illicit activities,” said Nelson Bunn, Executive Director of the National District Attorneys Association, in a statement. “Access to beneficial ownership information is a necessity for prosecuting crimes. Treasury’s interim final rule threatens to deny law enforcement the vital information they need to pursue illegitimate business fronts that jeopardize U.S. national security and public safety. If finalized without amending, this proposal will undermine Congress’s intent and stunt efforts to achieve justice across the nation.” 

The CTA was signed into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021 and requires individuals with an ownership interest in a limited liability company to disclose personal data to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as a way to deter illicit activity such as money laundering, tax fraud, drug trafficking and terrorism financing by anonymous shell companies. Failure to comply could result in up to two years of jail time and a $10,000 fine per violation. 

Under the CTA statute, the Treasury has the authority to make reporting exemptions only with concurrence from the Department of Homeland Security and Attorney General that reporting by the entities in question “would not serve the public interest” and “would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes.” Two decades of evidence compiled by Congress and Treasury’s own risk assessments that “[s]hell companies and the lack of timely access to beneficial ownership information…are distinct vulnerabilities in the U.S.” anti-money laundering system would suggest that the proposal violates the plain language of the Act.  

“Today’s decision threatens to make the United States a magnet for foreign criminals across the world,” said Scott Greytak, director of advocacy for Transparency International U.S., in a statement. “The decision tells criminals — fentanyl traffickers, human traffickers, terrorist organizations, corrupt officials — that they can evade the most powerful anti-money laundering law since the PATRIOT Act by choosing to set up a shell company for their criminal operations anywhere in the United States.”

The National Federation of Independent Business, a small business advocacy organization that had sued to stop the Corporate Transparency Act, praised the interim final rule.

“NFIB has been steadfast since the beginning that this onerous requirement is a massive intrusion into small businesses’ privacy and creates an unprecedented new government database on Americans. We agree with President Trump that requirements from the Corporate Transparency Act are ‘outrageous and invasive,'” said NFIB president Brad Close in a statement. “NFIB will continue to work with Congress to put the Administration’s actions into law and repeal the CTA fully. Furthermore, Congress should direct FinCEN to immediately destroy all of the data that was already submitted by small businesses out of fear they would face fines and prison time.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

1 day ago

on

August 25, 2026

By

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 15, 2026

By

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 9, 2026

By

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Trending