Unmasking Ownership: Guiding Clients Through the Federal BOI Reporting Maze

Introduction: The CTA’s Turbulent Journey from Landmark Legislation to Regulatory Limbo

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) has been nothing short of a legal roller coaster since its inception.1 Enacted as a landmark component of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, it represented one of the most significant overhauls of U.S. corporate law in decades, aiming to pull back the curtain on anonymous shell companies. However, its implementation has been a tumultuous saga of intense legal battles, whiplash-inducing regulatory changes, and profound uncertainty for millions of American businesses and their legal advisors. The story of the CTA is one of a central conflict: a laudable national security objective clashing head-on with significant constitutional challenges and the immense practical compliance burden it placed upon small businesses.2

This conflict reached a dramatic climax in March 2025, when the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that effectively dismantled the domestic reporting regime overnight, exempting the very businesses that had been its primary focus.5 This stunning reversal was not a minor course correction but a near-total capitulation on the domestic front, a direct result of a chaotic period of conflicting court injunctions and fierce political pressure from small business advocates who argued the law was an unconstitutional overreach.6 The CTA’s implementation journey reveals a fundamental disconnect between a broad legislative ambition—to unmask over two million new entities formed each year—and the practical and legal realities of imposing such a sweeping mandate on the U.S. economy.10 This article provides legal professionals with a definitive guide to the CTA, charting its path from its original intent, through the legal chaos, to the current, radically altered landscape, and culminating in actionable advice for counseling clients in this uncertain environment.

Section 1: The Original Intent: Why the Corporate Transparency Act Was Created

To understand the CTA’s tumultuous path, one must first grasp the critical national security problem it was designed to solve: the pervasive use of anonymous U.S.-based shell corporations as vehicles for a vast array of illicit activities. For years, federal law enforcement and international bodies had warned that the ease of forming anonymous entities in the United States made it a premier destination for criminals seeking to hide their identities and launder illicit funds.10 The legislative record details a litany of specific crimes Congress sought to combat, including money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation financing, serious tax fraud, human and drug trafficking, counterfeiting, securities fraud, and acts of foreign corruption.1

Congress used the vivid analogy of Russian “Matryoshka” nesting dolls to describe how malign actors layer corporate structures across various secretive jurisdictions. Each time an investigator peels back a layer of ownership, they find not an individual but another anonymous corporate entity, frustrating and often defeating efforts to identify the ultimate wrongdoer.10

Before the CTA, the primary responsibility for collecting beneficial ownership information fell on financial institutions, which were required to conduct customer due diligence under the Bank Secrecy Act.2 The CTA represented a fundamental policy shift, moving this significant compliance burden from banks directly onto the reporting companies themselves.2 The Act’s core mechanism was to direct FinCEN to establish and maintain a national, non-public registry of beneficial owners.14 Access to this sensitive database was to be tightly controlled, available to federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement under specific conditions, and to financial institutions for their due diligence obligations, but only with the reporting company’s consent.2 This was not merely an administrative rule change but a strategic realignment of the U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) regime. The legislative findings explicitly state a goal to “bring the United States into compliance with international anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism standards,” signaling that the CTA was a long-overdue effort to close a major gap in the nation’s financial defenses and align the country with global best practices.10

Section 2: Deconstructing the Original CTA Framework: A Primer for Counsel

To advise clients effectively, legal professionals must understand the architecture of the original CTA framework, as its concepts may yet return in future regulations. The initial regime was designed to be extraordinarily broad, capturing an estimated 32.6 million entities.6

A. Defining a “Reporting Company” (Pre-IFR)

The original definition of a “reporting company” was expansive. It included any corporation, limited liability company (LLC), or other similar entity created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or a similar office under state or tribal law. It also applied to foreign entities that had registered to do business in the United States.14 This broad net was specifically designed to capture the vast majority of small businesses, which lawmakers believed were most susceptible to misuse as anonymous shells.11

B. The 23 Exemptions – A Critical Analysis

The CTA was not intended to create duplicative burdens for companies already subject to substantial regulation. Accordingly, the law provided 23 categories of exemptions.18 The most relevant for corporate counsel included:

  • Publicly traded companies registered with the SEC.18
  • Heavily regulated financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, and registered investment advisers.18
  • The “Large Operating Company” Exemption. This was a critical safe harbor, but its three-pronged test was stringent. An entity had to meet all three criteria to qualify:
  1. Employ more than 20 full-time employees in the United States;
  2. Have filed a federal income tax return in the previous year showing more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales sourced from the U.S.; and
  3. Have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S..11
    Notably, this exemption created immediate challenges. Newly formed entities could not qualify because they lacked a prior year’s tax return to meet the revenue test.11 Furthermore, single-member LLCs “disregarded” for tax purposes often could not qualify because they do not file their own tax returns.21

C. Defining a “Beneficial Owner” – The Two-Pronged Test

At the heart of the CTA was the definition of a “beneficial owner.” The law established two independent tests: an individual was considered a beneficial owner if they, directly or indirectly, either:

  1. Exercised substantial control over the reporting company; OR
  2. Owned or controlled at least $25\%$ of the ownership interests of the company.12

Crucially, FinCEN made it clear that every reporting company was expected to have at least one beneficial owner identifiable under the “substantial control” test, regardless of its ownership structure.11

D. Unpacking “Substantial Control”: A Four-Part Framework

The “substantial control” prong was a primary source of complexity and a key area requiring legal analysis. FinCEN defined four broad indicators of substantial control:

  1. Senior Officer: The individual serves as a President, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Operating Officer (COO), General Counsel, or any other officer performing a similar function.1
  2. Appointment/Removal Authority: The individual has the authority to appoint or remove any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar governing body).18
  3. Important Decision-Maker: The individual directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions of the company, such as those related to its business, finances, or structure.1
  4. Catch-All Provision: The individual has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company.18

E. The “Company Applicant” – A Point of Risk for Legal Professionals

For entities formed on or after January 1, 2024, the CTA required reporting information on up to two “company applicants”:

  1. The individual who directly files the document that creates or registers the company.
  2. The individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing action.1

This provision had direct and troubling implications for the legal profession. A paralegal who physically submits the formation documents and the supervising attorney who directs that action could both be deemed company applicants.1 This created a significant new layer of potential liability. The broad, principles-based definition of “substantial control” and the direct implication of lawyers as “company applicants” created an ambiguous and risky environment. Attorneys were now faced with making subjective judgment calls on behalf of clients that carried potential civil and criminal penalties for willful misfiling.14 This dynamic risked pitting an attorney’s duty to their client against their own potential liability under a new federal statute, transforming the routine act of entity formation into a high-stakes compliance exercise.

Section 3: The Seismic Shift: FinCEN’s March 2025 Interim Final Rule

The original CTA framework was met with immediate and fierce legal resistance. A tumultuous period in late 2024 and early 2025 saw a series of court cases, most notably National Small Business Association v. Yellen and Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, which resulted in a confusing volley of nationwide injunctions, stays, and vacated orders.3 This legal whiplash created a state of chaos for businesses and their counsel, making compliance a moving target.

B. The Interim Final Rule (IFR) – A Regulatory Reset

In response to this legal and political pressure, FinCEN acted decisively. On March 21, 2025, it issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR), effective March 26, 2025, that fundamentally reset the CTA’s scope.5 The IFR made two sweeping changes:

  1. Exemption of All U.S. Entities: The rule revised the definition of “reporting company” to exclude all entities created under the laws of a U.S. state or Indian tribe. In short, all domestic companies became exempt.7
  2. Exemption of All U.S. Persons: The rule also stipulated that U.S. persons (citizens and residents) are not required to be reported as beneficial owners, even if they own or control a foreign entity that is still required to report.5

C. The New Definition of “Reporting Company”

Under the IFR, the definition of a “reporting company” was drastically narrowed. An entity is now subject to the CTA’s reporting requirements only if it was formed under the laws of a foreign country AND has registered to do business in a U.S. state or tribal jurisdiction.7

D. Quantifying the Impact: From 32 Million to 12,000

The scale of this regulatory retreat is staggering. FinCEN’s own estimates show the number of entities required to report beneficial ownership information plummeted from approximately 32.6 million to just under 12,000.5 This single statistic powerfully illustrates the IFR’s transformative impact on the CTA landscape.

Table 1: The Corporate Transparency Act – Before and After the March 2025 Interim Final Rule

ProvisionOriginal Rule (Effective Jan 1, 2024)Current Rule (Post-March 2025 IFR)
“Reporting Company” DefinitionDomestic entities (LLCs, Corps, etc.) AND Foreign entities registered to do business in the U.S.ONLY Foreign entities registered to do business in the U.S.
Estimated Number of Filers~$32.6$ Million~$12,000$
Who Must Report BOI?All U.S. and non-U.S. beneficial owners.ONLY non-U.S. beneficial owners.
Impact on U.S. CompaniesRequired to file a BOI report unless exempt.Exempt. No filing requirement.
Impact on U.S. PersonsMust be reported as beneficial owners if they meet the tests.Exempt. Not required to be reported, even if they own a foreign reporting company.
Company Applicant ReportingRequired for all new entities formed in 2024 and beyond.Still required for new foreign reporting companies.

Section 4: Navigating the New Maze: Compliance Obligations for Foreign Reporting Companies

Despite the IFR’s sweeping exemptions, the CTA is not dead. Its reporting obligations remain fully in effect for the narrow category of foreign-formed entities that are registered to do business in the United States.7 While the IFR dramatically reduced the number of filers, it may have inadvertently increased the risk profile for those that remain. In justifying the rule, FinCEN explicitly stated that “foreign reporting companies present heightened national security and illicit finance risks”.5 With its enforcement resources no longer spread across 32 million entities, FinCEN can now concentrate its entire compliance apparatus on this much smaller, pre-identified high-risk pool. For counsel to these remaining entities, the message is clear: compliance failures are now far more likely to be detected and prosecuted.

B. New Filing Deadlines

The IFR established new, urgent deadlines for this group:

  • Existing Foreign Entities: Foreign reporting companies that were registered to do business in the U.S. before March 26, 2025, were required to file their initial BOI report by April 25, 2025.5
  • New Foreign Entities: Foreign reporting companies that register on or after March 26, 2025, must file their initial BOI report within 30 calendar days of receiving actual or public notice that their registration is effective.8

C. What to Report

The reporting requirements for this group remain detailed:

  • Company Information: The entity must report its full legal name, any trade or “doing business as” names, its principal U.S. business address, its jurisdiction of registration, and a foreign tax identification number.15
  • Non-U.S. Beneficial Owner Information: For each beneficial owner who is not a U.S. person, the company must report their full legal name, date of birth, current residential street address, and a unique identifying number from a non-expired foreign passport (or other acceptable ID), along with an image of that document.2
  • Company Applicant Information: For foreign entities newly registering to do business, the personal information of up to two company applicants must also be reported.20

D. The Ongoing Duty: Updated and Corrected Reports

A critical compliance trap for remaining reporting companies is the ongoing obligation to keep their information current. Reporting is not a one-time event.

  • Updated Reports: If any previously reported information changes—for example, a beneficial owner moves to a new residential address, or the company changes its principal place of business—the company is required to file an updated report with FinCEN within 30 calendar days of the date the change occurred.18
  • Corrected Reports: If a company becomes aware of an inaccuracy in a previously filed report, it must file a corrected report within 30 calendar days of the date it knew or had reason to know of the error.20
  • Safe Harbor: The CTA provides a crucial safe harbor from penalties for submitting inaccurate information if the person voluntarily and promptly corrects the report within 90 days of the original incorrect filing.14

Section 5: The Sword of Damocles: Understanding the CTA’s Penalty Regime

The penalties for non-compliance with the CTA are severe and designed to ensure adherence to the reporting regime. Attorneys must impress upon their clients the gravity of these consequences.

A. Severe Consequences for Non-Compliance

Violations of the CTA’s reporting obligations can trigger both civil and criminal penalties:

  • Civil Penalties: A fine of up to $500 per day for each day that a violation continues. This amount is adjusted for inflation and currently stands at $591 per day.1
  • Criminal Penalties: For more serious violations, penalties can include a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years.14

B. The Critical Standard: “Willful” Violations

The most important legal standard in the penalty regime is that these consequences apply to any person who willfully provides, or attempts to provide, false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, or willfully fails to report complete or updated information.14 It is critical to advise clients that “willful” is a broad legal standard. It includes not only a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty but can also encompass concepts like “willful blindness” or “conscious disregard”.17 This means a person cannot simply claim ignorance and ignore their reporting obligations if they have reason to know they exist.

C. Who Can Be Held Liable?

Liability under the CTA is cast broadly. It can extend to any “person” who causes the failure to file or is responsible for filing false information. This can include the reporting company itself, its senior officers at the time of the failure, and potentially beneficial owners or company applicants who knowingly provide false information for the report.17

Section 6: Strategic Counsel in an Unsettled Landscape: Actionable Guidance for Attorneys

In this fluid regulatory environment, legal professionals must adopt a clear and proactive strategy for advising clients. The guidance will differ dramatically depending on the client’s status.

A. Client Communication Strategy

  • For Domestic Clients (The Vast Majority): The immediate message is that they are currently exempt from BOI reporting under the IFR. Counsel should advise them to “stand down, but stay vigilant.” It is imperative to explain that the IFR is not necessarily the final word. A final rule from FinCEN or new legislation from Congress could reimpose reporting obligations, particularly for U.S. companies with significant foreign ownership that may be deemed high-risk.5
  • For Foreign Clients Registered in the U.S.: The message must be one of urgency: “act now.” These clients face an immediate and high-stakes compliance burden. Counsel must ensure these clients fully understand their obligations, the tight 30-day timelines for initial and updated reports, and the severe penalties for failure to comply.

B. Risk Mitigation and Corporate Governance

Attorneys should advise all clients, both domestic and foreign, to consider amending key corporate governance documents to prepare for any eventuality:

  • Operating and Shareholder Agreements: These documents should be updated with clauses that require beneficial owners to promptly provide the company with all necessary information for CTA reporting. Furthermore, these clauses should mandate that beneficial owners notify the company of any change to their information within a short, specified timeframe (e.g., 10 or 15 days) to ensure the company can meet its 30-day deadline to file an updated report with FinCEN.23
  • Engagement Letters: Law firms must update their own engagement letters to clearly define the scope of their CTA-related services. The letter should specify whether the firm’s role is limited to the initial filing or if it includes ongoing monitoring and filing of updated reports. This clarity is crucial for managing the firm’s own liability.

C. Best Practices for Compliance (for Foreign Clients)

For the foreign clients who must currently comply, counsel should recommend several best practices:

  • Develop a Formal Compliance Policy: Clients should create and implement a written policy for identifying beneficial owners, gathering and securely storing their sensitive personal data, and establishing a process for tracking changes to ensure timely updates are filed.37
  • Create an Ownership and Control Diagram: For entities with complex structures, visually mapping out ownership percentages and lines of substantial control is an invaluable tool for accurately identifying all individuals who may qualify as beneficial owners.
  • Advise on FinCEN Identifiers: For non-U.S. beneficial owners who are involved with multiple U.S. reporting companies, obtaining a FinCEN Identifier is highly advantageous. This allows an individual to provide a single, unique number to each company instead of repeatedly sharing sensitive personal documents like a passport, which streamlines the reporting process and enhances data security.2

Conclusion: The Future of Corporate Transparency: What to Watch For

The CTA saga is far from over. The March 2025 IFR is an interim solution, not a permanent one. FinCEN accepted public comments on the rule through May 27, 2025, and has stated its intention to issue a final rule later in the year.5 The regulatory landscape remains subject to change.

The final rule could look significantly different from the IFR. Facing pressure from national security agencies and members of Congress concerned about the massive new loophole, FinCEN may choose to reimpose reporting requirements on certain categories of “high-risk” domestic entities, such as U.S. companies with substantial foreign ownership.36 Separately, Congress could intervene to amend the CTA itself in response to the successful legal challenges, potentially creating an entirely new statutory framework.5

For legal professionals, the current state of CTA compliance is a temporary reprieve for most clients. However, the underlying policy goals and legal tensions that sparked this legislative and judicial battle remain unresolved. Vigilance, proactive client communication, and robust internal compliance planning are the essential tools for navigating the uncertainty that lies ahead.

Works cited

  1. A Legal Roller Coaster: The Corporate Transparency Act – The …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/a-legal-roller-coaster-the-corporate-transparency-act/
  2. The Corporate Transparency Act – Preparing for the Federal Database of Beneficial Ownership Information – American Bar Association, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2021-may/the-corporate-transparency-act/
  3. Challenges to the Corporate Transparency Act – Cadwalader, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.cadwalader.com/resources/articles/challenges-to-the-corporate-transparency-act
  4. Corporate Transparency Act halted: What the recent court injunction means for tax and accounting professionals, accessed October 19, 2025, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/corporate-transparency-act-halted/
  5. FinCEN Guts Corporate Transparency Act; Narrows Scope to Cover …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.wiley.law/alert-FinCEN-Guts-Corporate-Transparency-Act
  6. US Corporate Transparency Act – Morgan Lewis, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.morganlewis.com/topics/us-corporate-transparency-act
  7. FinCEN Narrows Scope of Corporate Transparency Act | Seyfarth Shaw LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/fincen-narrows-scope-of-corporate-transparency-act.html
  8. Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting | FinCEN.gov, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fincen.gov/boi
  9. Corporate Transparency Act NARROWED – FinCEN Eliminates Reporting Obligations for All U.S. Persons and U.S. Entities – Smith Anderson, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.smithlaw.com/newsroom/publications/corporate-transparency-act-narrowed-fincen-eliminates-reporting-obligations-for-all-u-s-persons-and-u-s-entities
  10. FinCen: Corporate Transparency Act, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/Corporate_Transparency_Act.pdf
  11. The Corporate Transparency Act: Deniers Beware – American Bar Association, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2023-july/the-corporate-transparency-act-deniers-beware/
  12. What Every Small Business Needs to Know About the Corporate Transparency Act, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.uschamber.com/co/start/strategy/small-business-corporate-transparency-act
  13. Compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act | Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa – Chicago Law Firm, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.agdglaw.com/compliance-with-the-corporate-transparency-act
  14. The Corporate Transparency Act: Augmented Federal Anti-Money Laundering Legislation Brings New Reporting Requirements of Company Ownership – American Bar Association, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2021-february/the-corporate-transparency-act/
  15. Compliance with New Reporting Requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act, accessed October 19, 2025, https://kessenick.com/new-reporting-requirements-under-corporate-transparency-act/
  16. Fact Sheet: Beneficial Ownership Information Access and Safeguards Final Rule – FinCEN, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fact-sheet-beneficial-ownership-information-access-and-safeguards-final-rule
  17. The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) | Reporting Requirements, Potential Penalties, and Impending (but Suspended) Deadlines. – Freeman Law, accessed October 19, 2025, https://freemanlaw.com/the-corporate-transparency-act-cta/
  18. The Corporate Transparency Act is here—are you ready? | Global …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/55b72cd0/the-corporate-transparency-act-is-here
  19. Corporate Transparency Act | BCLP – Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/topics/corporate-transparency-act.html
  20. FAQ: New Disclosure Requirements Under the Corporate Transparency Act – Koley Jessen, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.koleyjessen.com/insights/publications/new-corporate-transparency-act-requirements
  21. Update on the Corporate Transparency Act: Navigating a Potpourri of Possible Pitfalls, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2024/09/update-on-the-corporate-transparency-act-navigating-a-potpourri-of-possible-pitfalls
  22. H.R.2513 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Corporate Transparency Act of 2019, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2513
  23. The Corporate Transparency Act: An Overview and Its Impact on Lawyers and Law Firms by Tori J. Osler and Jacqueline N. Walton | Idaho State Bar, accessed October 19, 2025, https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/the-corporate-transparency-act-an-overview-and-its-impact-on-lawyers-and-law-firms-by-tori-j-osler-and-jacqueline-n-walton/
  24. The Corporate Transparency Act | Perkins Coie, accessed October 19, 2025, https://perkinscoie.com/corporate-transparency-act
  25. FinCEN Ends BOI Reporting Requirements for U.S. Entities, accessed October 19, 2025, https://calchiro.org/2025/04/fincen-updates/
  26. Corporate Transparency Act Interim Final Rule Issued | Insights …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/03/corporate-transparency-act-interim-final-rule-issued
  27. FINCEN REMOVES BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR US COMPANIES AND PERSONS AND ISSUES NEW DEADLINES FOR FOREIGN REP – Clifford Chance, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2025/03/FinCEN%20removes%20beneficial%20ownership%20reporting%20requirements%20for%20US%20companies%20and%20persons%20and%20issues%20new%20deadlines%20for%20foreign%20reporting%20companies.pdf
  28. Interim Final Rule: Questions and Answers | FinCEN.gov, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fincen.gov/boi/ifr-qa
  29. Update from FinCEN: BOI REPORTING REQUIREMENT REMOVED FOR U.S. COMPANIES AND U.S. PERSONS; NEW DEADLINES FOR FOREIGN COMPANIES – MIAMI REALTORS®, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.miamirealtors.com/2025/03/22/boi-reporting-requirement-removed-for-us-companies/
  30. New Reporting Requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act | Foley & Lardner LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/01/new-reporting-requirements-corporate-transparency-act/
  31. Navigating Corrected or Updated BOI Reports Under the CTA – Secure Compliance, accessed October 19, 2025, https://securecompliance.us/corrected-or-updated-boi-reports-under-cta/
  32. Corporate Transparency Act Penalties | Harbor Compliance | www.harborcompliance.com, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.harborcompliance.com/corporate-transparency-act-penalties
  33. The Risks of Non-Compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act – Wegman Hessler Valore Law Firm Cleveland – Business Law, IP, Litigation and Estate Plans, accessed October 19, 2025, https://wegmanlaw.com/the-risks-of-non-compliance-with-the-corporate-transparency-act/
  34. Corporate Transparency Act: FAQ – Thomson Reuters, accessed October 19, 2025, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/corporate-transparency-act-faqs/
  35. The Corporate Transparency Act: Penalties and How To Avoid Them |, accessed October 19, 2025, https://andersonadvisors.com/blog/the-corporate-transparency-act-penalties-and-how-to-avoid-them/
  36. FinCEN Removes BOI Reporting Requirements for US Companies …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/03/fincen-removes-boi-reporting-requirements-for-us-companies-and-us-persons
  37. The Corporate Transparency Act | Perkins Coie, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.perkinscoie.com/corporate-transparency-act