Skip to content

CTA Reporting and Enforcement Suspended Indefinitely

March 4, 2025

In a whirlwind series of announcements, the Treasury Department and FinCEN have suspended all Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) reporting and enforcement for domestic entities indefinitely.

On Feb. 27, FinCEN announced that all reporting and enforcement of the CTA would be suspended until a new reporting rule was finalized.  Then, on March 2, the Treasury Department announced the indefinite suspension of CTA reporting requirements. The Treasury Department further stated that it would “not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners” even after the new regulations were issued, and that the new CTA regulations and compliance requirements would apply to “foreign reporting companies only.” President Trump weighed in on social media to celebrate the suspension of the reporting requirements.

The main takeaway is that the previous CTA reporting deadline of March 21 is now suspended and, until a new set of regulations is finalized, CTA beneficial ownership reporting is not required and CTA penalties will not be enforced. As of now, the FinCEN website is still active and accepting beneficial ownership information reports (BOI reports). However, no BOI reports for any entities are required to be filed. The Treasury Department is now reviewing the CTA regulations and preparing a new set of regulations that will only require reporting from foreign reporting companies.

The CTA statute as codified in 31 U.S. Code Sec. 5336 requires beneficial ownership reporting by all domestic and foreign entities registered to do business in the United States unless an entity meets a reporting exemption. The Treasury Department’s role in promulgating regulations under the statute is to implement the CTA. It will require legislative action to permanently change the reporting requirements to only apply to foreign entities. It is possible that the Trump administration will work with Congress to introduce new legislation to limit the application of the CTA to only foreign entities. However, without a change in the statute, CTA reporting requirements and enforcement may reemerge in the future. There are also a number of continuing lawsuits at both the district court and appellate level challenging the constitutionality of the CTA.

Clark Hill’s CTA Task Force will continue to monitor for updates to the CTA and is available to counsel clients on reporting and compliance requirements.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Event

Clark Hill's Commercial Real Estate Symposium – Dallas, Texas

Join Clark Hill’s Commercial Real Estate attorneys and industry professionals for a timely and dynamic program in Dallas, focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the CRE industry.

Explore more
Legal Updates

What Is Likely the Weakest Provision in Your Multi-State Lease?

Using one eminent domain lease clause across states risks lost value. Learn how state laws should reflect notice and just compensation for better protection.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Critical Risk Mitigation Provisions for Design Contracts — Part 1: Waiver of Consequential Damages

An essential element of architect and engineer contracts with their clients is the treatment of risk sharing between the parties. Design professionals who are typically simply providing services for a fee, and who are not investors who will share in the profits of a successful project, can ill-afford to expose themselves to unlimited liability for negligent errors and omissions in the performance of their services. Architects and engineers would argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expose them to unlimited downside risk when they do not directly participate in the upside profit potential of the projects they design. Owners and developers would counter that this is why design professionals carry professional liability insurance. But even simple design errors can lead to liability that is many times greater than the amount of such insurance.

Explore more