[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69920-69974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26548]



[[Page 69919]]

Vol. 86

Wednesday,

No. 233

December 8, 2021

Part VI





Department of the Treasury





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Financial Crimes Enforcement Network





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





31 CFR Part 1010





Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 233 / Wednesday, December 8, 2021 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 69920]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

31 CFR Part 1010

RIN 1506-AB49


Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FinCEN is promulgating proposed regulations to require certain 
entities to file reports with FinCEN that identify two categories of 
individuals: The beneficial owners of the entity; and individuals who 
have filed an application with specified governmental authorities to 
form the entity or register it to do business. The proposed regulations 
would implement Section 6403 of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), 
enacted into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), and describe who must file a report, what 
information must be provided, and when a report is due. Requiring 
entities to submit beneficial ownership and company applicant 
information to FinCEN is intended to help prevent and combat money 
laundering, terrorist financing, tax fraud, and other illicit activity. 
Once finalized, these proposed regulations will affect a large number 
of entities doing business in the United States. This document also 
invites comments from the public regarding all aspects of the proposed 
regulations as well as comments in response to specific questions.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule may be submitted on or 
before February 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal E-rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Refer to Docket Number 
FINCEN-2021-0005 and RIN 1506-AB49.
     Mail: Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket Number FINCEN-
2021-0005 and RIN 1506-AB49.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Regulatory Support Section 
at 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    These proposed regulations would implement the requirement in the 
CTA \1\ that a reporting company submit to FinCEN a report containing 
beneficial owner and company applicant information (together, 
``beneficial ownership information'' or BOI). This proposal fulfills 
the statutory direction to Treasury to promulgate regulations to 
implement the CTA and reflects FinCEN's careful consideration of public 
comments received in response to an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking (the ``ANPRM'').\2\ To the extent practicable, and as 
required by the CTA, the proposed regulations aim to minimize the 
burden on reporting companies and to ensure that the information 
collected is accurate, complete, and highly useful. More broadly, the 
proposed regulations are intended to protect U.S. national security, 
provide critical information to law enforcement, and promote financial 
transparency and compliance. The CTA and these proposed regulations 
represent the culmination of years of efforts by Congress, the 
Department of the Treasury (Treasury), other national security 
agencies, law enforcement, and other stakeholders to bolster the United 
States' corporate transparency framework and to address deficiencies in 
BOI reporting noted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), 
Congress, law enforcement, and others. The proposed regulations 
address: (1) Who must file; (2) when they must file; and (3) what 
information they must provide. Collecting this information and 
providing access to law enforcement, the intelligence community, and 
other key stakeholders will diminish the ability of malign actors to 
obfuscate their activities through the use of anonymous shell and front 
companies. The proposed regulations would also specify circumstances in 
which a person violates the reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CTA is Title LXIV of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 
116-283 (January 1, 2021) (the ``NDAA''). Division F of the NDAA is 
the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which includes the CTA. 
Section 6403 of the CTA, among other things, amends the Bank Secrecy 
Act (BSA) by adding a new Section 5336, Beneficial Ownership 
Information Reporting Requirements, to Subchapter II of Chapter 53 
of Title 31, United States Code.
    \2\ 86 FR 17557 (Apr. 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations describe two distinct types of reporting 
companies that must file reports with FinCEN--domestic reporting 
companies and foreign reporting companies. Generally, under the 
proposed regulations, a domestic reporting company is any entity that 
is created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or 
similar office of a jurisdiction within the United States. A foreign 
reporting company is any entity formed under the law of a foreign 
jurisdiction that is registered to do business within the United 
States.
    The proposed regulations also describe the twenty-three specific 
exemptions from the definition of reporting company under the CTA. The 
CTA also includes an option for the Secretary of the Treasury 
(Secretary), with the written concurrence of the Attorney General and 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, to exclude by regulation additional 
types of entities. FinCEN does not currently propose to exempt 
additional types of entities beyond those specified by the CTA.
    The proposed regulations describe who is a beneficial owner and who 
is a company applicant. A beneficial owner is any individual who meets 
at least one of two criteria: (1) Exercising substantial control over 
the reporting company; or (2) owning or controlling at least 25 percent 
of the ownership interest of the reporting company. The proposed 
regulations define the terms ``substantial control'' and ``ownership 
interest'' and describe rules for determining whether an individual 
owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting 
company. The proposed regulations would also describe five types of 
individuals who the CTA exempts from the definition of beneficial 
owner.
    The proposed regulations also describe who is a company applicant. 
In the case of a domestic reporting company, a company applicant is the 
individual who files the document that forms the entity. In the case of 
a foreign reporting company, a company applicant is the individual who 
files the document that first registers the entity to do business in 
the United States. The proposed regulations specify that a company 
applicant includes anyone who directs or controls the filing of the 
document by another.
    Under the proposed regulations, the time at which a required report 
is due would depend on: (1) When the reporting company was created or 
registered; and (2) whether the report is an initial report, an updated 
report providing new information, or a report correcting erroneous 
information in a previous report. Domestic reporting companies created, 
or foreign reporting companies registered to do business in the United 
States, before the effective date of the final regulations would have 
one year from the effective date of the final regulations to file their 
initial

[[Page 69921]]

report with FinCEN. Domestic reporting companies created, or foreign 
reporting companies registered to do business in the U.S. for the first 
time, on or after the effective date of the final regulations would be 
required to file their initial report with FinCEN within 14 calendar 
days of the date on which they are created or registered, respectively. 
If there is a change in the information previously reported to FinCEN 
under these regulations, reporting companies would have 30 calendar 
days to file an updated report. Finally, if a reporting company filed 
information that was inaccurate at the time of filing, the reporting 
company would have to file a corrected report within 14 calendar days 
of the date it knew, or should have known, that the information was 
inaccurate.
    The proposed regulations also describe the type of information that 
a reporting company is required to file. First, the reporting company 
would have to identify itself. The proposed regulations describe the 
information that a reporting company must submit to FinCEN about: (1) 
The reporting company, and (2) each beneficial owner and company 
applicant. This includes, for example, the name and address of each 
beneficial owner and company applicant, among other things. In lieu of 
providing specific information about an individual, the reporting 
company may provide a unique identifier issued by FinCEN called a 
FinCEN identifier. The proposed regulations describe how to obtain a 
FinCEN identifier and when it may be used. The proposed regulations 
also describe highly useful information that reporting companies are 
encouraged, but not required, to provide. This additional information 
would support efforts by government authorities and financial 
institutions to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and 
other illicit activities such as tax evasion.
    The CTA provides that it is unlawful for any person to willfully 
provide, or attempt to provide, false or fraudulent BOI to FinCEN, or 
to willfully fail to report complete or updated BOI to FinCEN. The 
proposed regulations describe persons that are subject to this 
provision and what acts (or failures to act) trigger a violation.

II. Scope of the NPRM

    In addition to the reporting requirements addressed by this 
proposed rule, Section 6403 contains other requirements. Section 6403 
requires FinCEN to maintain the information that it collects under the 
CTA in a confidential, secure, and non-public database. It further 
authorizes FinCEN to disclose the information to certain government 
agencies, domestic and foreign, for certain purposes specified in the 
CTA; and to financial institutions to assist them in meeting their 
customer due diligence requirements. All disclosures of information 
submitted pursuant to Section 6403 are subject to appropriate protocols 
to protect the security and confidentiality of the BOI. FinCEN is 
required to establish such protocols by rulemaking.
    Section 6403 also requires that FinCEN revise its current 
regulation concerning customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for 
financial institutions at 31 CFR 1010.230 (the ``CDD Rule''). The 
current CDD Rule requires certain financial institutions to identify 
and verify the beneficial owners of legal entity customers when those 
customers open new accounts as part of those financial institutions' 
customer due diligence programs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 31 CFR 1010.230. See also Final Rule: Customer Due 
Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions, 81 FR 29398 (May 
11, 2016) (promulgating same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN intends to issue three sets of rulemakings to implement the 
requirements of Section 6403: A rulemaking to implement the beneficial 
ownership information reporting requirements, a second to implement the 
statute's protocols for access to and disclosure of beneficial 
ownership information, and a third to revise the existing CDD Rule, 
consistent with the requirements of section 6403(d) of the CTA. In this 
proposed rule, however, FinCEN seeks comments only on the first--the 
proposed regulations that would implement the reporting requirements of 
Section 6403. FinCEN intends to issue proposed regulations that would 
implement the other aspects of section 6403 of the CTA in the future 
and will solicit public comments on those proposed rules through 
publication in the Federal Register.
    While developing the final BOI reporting regulations, the BOI 
access regulations, and the revisions to the current CDD Rule, FinCEN 
continues to evaluate options for verification of information submitted 
in BOI reports.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In addition, pursuant to section 6502(b)(1)(C) and (D) of 
the NDAA, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, 
will conduct a study no later than two years after the effective 
date of the BOI reporting final rule, to evaluate the costs 
associated with imposing any new verification requirements on FinCEN 
and the resources necessary to implement any such changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

A. Beneficial Ownership of Entities

i. Overview and Current Status of BOI Reporting in the United States
    Legal entities such as corporations, limited liability companies, 
partnerships, and trusts play an essential and legitimate role in the 
U.S. and global economies. They are used to engage in lawful business 
activity, raise capital, limit personal liability, generate 
investments, and can be engines for innovation and economic growth, 
among other activities. They can also be used to engage in illicit 
activity and launder its proceeds, and enable those who threaten U.S. 
national security to access and transact in the U.S. economy. Because 
of the ease of setting up legal entities and the minimal amount of 
information required to do so in most U.S. states,\5\ combined with the 
investment opportunities the United States presents, the United States 
continues to be a popular jurisdiction for legal entity formation. The 
number of legal entities currently operating in the United States is 
difficult to estimate with certainty, but Congress found that more than 
two million corporations and limited liability companies are being 
formed under the laws of the states each year.\6\ According to Global 
Financial Integrity, more public and anonymous corporations are formed 
in the United States than in any other jurisdiction.\7\ The number of 
legal entities already in existence in the United States that may need 
to report information on themselves, their beneficial owners, and their 
formation or registration agents pursuant to the CTA is very likely in 
the tens of millions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For simplicity, in the remainder of this NPRM preamble the 
term ``state'' means the 50 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American 
Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands.
    \6\ CTA, Section 6402(1). FinCEN's analysis estimating such 
entities is included in the regulatory analysis in Section VI of 
this NPRM.
    \7\ Global Financial Integrity, The Library Card Project: The 
Ease of Forming Anonymous Companies in the United States, (March 
2019) (``GFI Report''), p. 1, available at https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.198.97/34n.8bd.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GFI-Library-Card-Project.pdf?time=1635277837. In 
2011, the World Bank assessed that 10 times more legal entities were 
formed in the United States than in all 41 tax haven jurisdictions 
combined. See The World Bank, UNODC, Stolen Asset Recovery 
Initiative, The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures 
to Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About It (2011), p. 93, 
available at https://star.worldbank.org/sites/star/files/puppetmastersv1.pdf.
    \8\ In the regulatory analysis in Section VI of this NPRM, 
FinCEN estimates that there will be at least 25 million ``reporting 
companies'' (entities that are required to report BOI and are not 
exempt) in existence when the proposed rule becomes effective.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69922]]

    The United States does not have a centralized or other complete 
aggregation of information about who owns and operates legal entities 
within the United States. The information about U.S. legal entities 
that is readily available to law enforcement is limited to the 
information required to be reported when the entity is formed at the 
state or Tribal level, unless an entity opens an account at a covered 
financial institution that is required to collect certain BOI pursuant 
to the CDD Rule. Though state- and Tribal-level entity formation laws 
vary, most jurisdictions do not require the identification of an 
entity's individual beneficial owners at the time of formation.\9\ In 
addition, the vast majority of states require disclosure of little to 
no contact information or information about an entity's officers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., GFI Report, pp. 4, 6. See also U.S. Government 
Accountability Office, Company Formations: Minimal Ownership 
Information Is Collected and Available (April 2006), available at 
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-06-376.pdf. A few jurisdictions 
require information about entities' beneficial owners. For example, 
effective January 1, 2020, the District of Columbia requires that 
entity registration filings ``state the names, residence and 
business addresses of each person whose aggregate share of direct or 
indirect, legal or beneficial ownership of a governance or total 
distributional interest of the entity:
    (A) Exceeds 10%; or
    (B) Does not exceed 10%; provided, that the person:
    (i) Controls the financial or operational decisions of the 
entity; or
    (ii) Has the ability to direct the day-to-day operations of the 
entity.''
    D.C. Code sec. 29-102.01(a)(6) (2021), available at https://code.dccouncil.us/us/dc/council/code/sections/29-102.01.
    \10\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Company 
Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available 
(April 2006), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-06-376.pdf. See also, e.g., The National Association of Secretaries of 
State (NASS), NASS Summary of Information Collected by States (June 
2019), available at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/company%20formation/nass-business-entity-info-collected-june2019.pdf, noting that in its review of key business entity 
information collected by states during the entity formation process 
and in annual or periodic reports, it observed that while 49 states 
and the District of Columbia request information on registered agent 
and incorporators during formation, collection of other information 
is less widespread. For corporation formation, only 24 states 
collected a principal office address; 21 states collected contact or 
filer information; 17 states and the District of Columbia collected 
information about the directors, officers, managers, or members, 
though NASS notes that several states specify this as optional; and 
one state collected ownership or control information. For limited 
liability company formation, 32 states and the District of Columbia 
collected a principal office address; 20 states collected contact or 
filer information; 20 states collected information about the 
directors, officers, managers, or members (though NASS noted this 
collection requirement may be optional; and 2 states collected 
ownership or control information. It appears more states collected 
information during periodic reports than formation, but ownership 
information remained the least reported, with 3 states and 2 states 
collecting such information from corporations and limited liability 
companies, respectively. In its 2019 state-by state analysis of 
incorporation requirements, the GFI found that (1) 23 states 
(Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) and the 
District of Columbia do not require that a company's address be 
provided; (2) every state requires the name of the person who 
incorporated the company; (3) four states (Alaska, California, Ohio 
and Virginia) do not require the incorporator's address; (4) 13 
states require information about a company's directors; and (5) five 
states require information about a company's officers either upon 
incorporation or within the first 90 days after incorporation. GFI 
Report, supra note 4, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. The Value of BOI and the Department of the Treasury's Efforts To 
Address the Lack of Transparency in Legal Entity Ownership Structures
    Access to BOI reported under the CTA would significantly enhance 
the U.S. Government and law enforcement's ability to protect the U.S. 
financial system from illicit use. It would also impede malign actors 
from abusing legal entities to conceal proceeds from criminal acts that 
undermine U.S. national security, such as corruption, human smuggling, 
drug and arms trafficking, and terrorist financing. For example, BOI 
can add valuable context to financial analysis in support of law 
enforcement and tax investigations. It can also provide essential 
information to the intelligence and security professionals who work to 
prevent terrorists, proliferators, and those who seek to undermine our 
democratic institutions or threaten other core U.S. interests from 
raising, hiding, or moving money in the United States through anonymous 
shell or front companies.\11\ Broadly, and critically, BOI can assist 
in the identification of linkages between potential illicit actors and 
business entities, including shell companies. Shell companies are 
typically non-publicly traded corporations, limited liability 
companies, or entities that have no physical presence beyond a mailing 
address and generate little to no independent economic value,\12\ and 
often are formed without disclosing their beneficial owners. 
Furthermore, shell companies can be used to conduct financial 
transactions without disclosing their true beneficial owners' 
involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A front company generates legitimate business proceeds to 
commingle with illicit earnings. See U.S. Department of the 
Treasury, National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (2018), p. 29, 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-18.pdf.
    \12\ FinCEN Advisory, FIN-2017-A003, ``Advisory to Financial 
Institutions and Real Estate Firms and Professionals,'' p. 3 (August 
22, 2017), available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/advisory/2017-08-22/Risk%20in%20Real%20Estate%20Advisory_FINAL%20508%20Tuesday%20%28002%29.pdf. ``Most shell companies are formed by individuals and 
businesses for legitimate purposes, such as to hold stock or assets 
of another business entity or to facilitate domestic and 
international currency trades, asset transfers, and corporate 
mergers. Shell companies can often be formed without disclosing the 
individuals that ultimately own or control them (i.e., their 
beneficial owners) and can be used to conduct financial transactions 
without disclosing their true beneficial owners' involvement.'' Id. 
While shell companies are used for legitimate corporate structuring 
purposes including in mergers or acquisitions, they are also used in 
common financial crime schemes. See FinCEN, The Role of Domestic 
Shell Companies in Financial Crime and Money Laundering: Limited 
Liability Companies (November 2006), p. 4, available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/LLCAssessment_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the principal authors of the CTA in the Senate and U.S. 
House of Representatives recently wrote to Department of the Treasury 
Secretary Janet L. Yellen that ``[e]ffective and timely implementation 
of the new BOI reporting requirement will be a dramatic step forward, 
strengthening U.S. national security by making it more difficult for 
malign actors to exploit opaque legal structures to facilitate and 
profit from their bad acts. . . . This means writing the rule broadly 
to include in the reporting as many corporate entities as possible 
while narrowly limiting the exemptions to the smallest possible set 
permitted by the law.'' \13\ They went on to note that such an approach 
``will address the current and evolving strategies that terrorists, 
criminals, and kleptocrats employ to hide and launder assets. It will 
also foreclose loophole options for creative criminals and their 
financial enablers, maximize the quality of the information collected, 
and prevent the evasion of BOI reporting.'' \14\ The integration of BOI 
reported pursuant to the CTA with the current data collected under the 
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA),\15\ and other

[[Page 69923]]

relevant government data, is expected to improve efforts to target 
illicit actors and their financial activities. The collection of BOI in 
a centralized database accessible to U.S. Government departments and 
agencies, law enforcement, tax authorities, and financial institutions 
may also help to level the playing field for honest businesses, 
particularly small businesses with fewer resources, that are at a 
disadvantage when competing against criminals who use shell companies 
to evade taxes, hide their illicit wealth, and defraud employees and 
customers.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ United States Congress, Letter from Senator Sherrod Brown, 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs, Representative Maxine Waters, Chairwoman of the House 
Committee on Financial Services, and Representative Carolyn B. 
Maloney, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, 
letter to Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen 
(November 3, 2021), available at https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/11.04_waters_brown_maloney_letter_on_cta.pdf.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Section 6003(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 
defines the BSA as comprising Section 21 of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b), Chapter 2 of Title I of Public Law 
91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.), and Subchapter II of Chapter 53 of 
Title 31, United States Code. Congress has authorized the Secretary 
to administer the BSA. The Secretary has delegated to the Director 
of FinCEN the authority to implement, administer, and enforce 
compliance with the BSA and associated regulations (Treasury Order 
180-01 (Jan. 14, 2020)).
    \16\ FinCEN, Prepared Remarks of FinCEN Director Kenneth A. 
Blanco, delivered at the Federal Identity (FedID) Forum and 
Exposition, Identity: Attack Surface and a Key to Countering Illicit 
Finance, noting also that ``[f]or many of the companies here today--
those that are developing or dealing with sensitive technologies--
understanding who may want to invest in your ventures, or who is 
competing with you in the marketplace, would allow for better, safer 
decisions to protect intellectual property.'' (September 24, 2019). 
https://www.fincen.gov/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-fincen-director-kenneth-blanco-delivered-federal-identity-fedid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2000, the Department of the Treasury, including FinCEN, has 
been raising awareness about the role of shell companies, their 
obfuscation of beneficial owners, and their role in facilitating 
criminal activity.\17\ In a 2006 report on the role of domestic shell 
companies in financial crime and money laundering, FinCEN found that 
shell companies enabled the movement of billions of dollars across 
borders by unknown beneficial owners, thereby facilitating money 
laundering or terrorist financing.\18\ Concurrently with the issuance 
of the report in 2006, FinCEN published an advisory alerting financial 
institutions to the money laundering risks involved in providing 
financial services to shell companies.\19\ In 2010, FinCEN, along with 
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union 
Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the 
Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and in consultation with the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, issued guidance clarifying and consolidating regulatory 
expectations at the time for obtaining BOI for certain accounts and 
customer relationships.\20\ The guidance noted that BOI in account 
relationships provides another tool for financial institutions to 
better understand and address money laundering and terrorist financing 
risks, protect themselves from criminal activity, and assist law 
enforcement with investigations and prosecutions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., Suspicious Activity (SAR) Report Review Issue #1 
(October 2000) (noting that SARS filed in 2000 reflected suspicious 
wire transfer patterns involving shell companies that lacked 
legitimate business purposes and that were being used to transfer 
large amounts of funds), p. 11. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/sar_tti_01.pdf.
    \18\ FinCEN, The Role of Domestic Shell Companies in Financial 
Crime and Money Laundering: Limited Liability Companies (November 
2006), available at https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/LLCAssessment_FINAL.pdf.
    \19\ FinCEN, Potential Money Laundering Risks Associated with 
Shell Companies (November 2006), available at https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/potential-money-laundering-risks-related-shell-companies.
    \20\ FinCEN, FIN-2010-G001, Guidance on Retaining and Obtaining 
Beneficial Ownership Information (March 5, 2010), available at 
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/guidance-obtaining-and-retaining-beneficial-ownership. The CDD Rule 
and subsequent guidance and examination guidelines have superseded 
the 2010 beneficial ownership guidance.
    \21\ Id., noting that ``[h]eightened risks can arise with 
respect to beneficial owners of accounts because nominal account 
holders can enable individuals and business entities to conceal the 
identity of the true owner of assets or property derived from or 
associated with criminal activity. Moreover, criminals, money 
launderers, tax evaders, and terrorists may exploit the privacy and 
confidentiality surrounding some business entities, including shell 
companies and other vehicles designed to conceal the nature and 
purpose of illicit transactions and the identities of the persons 
associated with them.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, the FATF \22\ issued its Third Mutual Evaluation Report on 
Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism, with 
respect to the United States (``2006 FATF Report''). The 2006 FATF 
Report highlighted the United States' lack of timely BOI available to 
relevant stakeholders.\23\ Following this report, both the U.S. Senate 
and the U.S. House of Representatives introduced bipartisan legislation 
to establish a nationwide beneficial ownership registry. These initial 
beneficial ownership registry bills included the Incorporation 
Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, first introduced in 
the U.S. Senate in 2008 and in the U.S. House of Representatives in 
2010.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The FATF, of which the United States is a founding member, 
is an international, inter-governmental task force whose purpose is 
the development and promotion of international standards and the 
effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational 
measures to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, the 
financing of proliferation, and other related threats to the 
integrity of the international financial system. The FATF assesses 
over 200 jurisdictions against its minimum standards for beneficial 
ownership transparency. Among other things, it has established 
standards on transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons, 
so as to deter and prevent the misuse of corporate vehicles. See 
FATF Recommendation 24, Transparency and Beneficial Ownership of 
Legal Persons, The FATF Recommendations: International Standards on 
Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and 
Proliferation (updated October 2020), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/fatf-recommendations.html; FATF Guidance, Transparency and Beneficial 
Ownership, Part III (October 2014), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Guidance-transparency-beneficial-ownership.pdf.
    \23\ Third Mutual Evaluation Report on Anti-Money Laundering and 
Combating the Financing of Terrorism, United States (2006), p. 237-
239, 299, 302, 305, 308 available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer/MER%20US%20full.pdf.
    \24\ Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance 
Act, S. 2956 110th Cong. (2008), available at https://www.congress.gov/110/bills/s2956/BILLS-110s2956is.pdf; Incorporation 
Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, H.R. 6098 111th 
Cong. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN took its first major regulatory step to collecting BOI when 
it initiated the CDD rulemaking process in March 2012 by issuing an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM),\25\ followed by a NPRM 
in August 2014.\26\ FinCEN published the final CDD Rule in May 
2016.\27\ The CDD Rule was the culmination of years of study and 
consultation with industry, law enforcement, civil society 
organizations, and other stakeholders, on the need for financial 
institutions to collect BOI and the value of that information. Citing a 
number of examples, the preamble to the CDD Rule noted that, among 
other things, BOI collected by financial institutions pursuant to the 
CDD Rule would: (1) Assist financial investigations by law enforcement 
and examinations by regulators; (2) increase the ability of financial 
institutions, law enforcement, and the intelligence community to 
address threats to national security; (3) facilitate reporting and 
investigations in support of tax compliance; and (4) advance Treasury's 
broad strategy to enhance financial transparency of legal entities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 77 FR 13046 (March 5, 2012).
    \26\ 79 FR 45151 (August 4, 2014).
    \27\ 81 FR 29397 (May 11, 2016).
    \28\ 81 FR 29399-29402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2016, the FATF issued another Anti-Money Laundering and 
Counter-Terrorist Financing Measures, United States Mutual Evaluation 
Report (``2016 FATF Report''), and continued to note U.S. deficiencies 
in the area of beneficial ownership transparency. The 2016 FATF Report 
identified the lack of BOI reporting requirements as one of the 
fundamental gaps in the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the 
financing of terrorism (AML/CFT)

[[Page 69924]]

regime.\29\ The 2016 FATF Report also observed that ``the relative ease 
with which U.S. corporations can be established, their opaqueness and 
their perceived global credibility makes them attractive to abuse for 
[money laundering and terrorism financing], domestically as well as 
internationally.'' \30\ The Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal 
Division and Acting Assistant Attorney General of the National Security 
Division at the Department of Justice issued a statement following the 
publication of the 2016 FATF Report stating that ``[f]ull transparency 
of corporate ownership would strengthen our ability to trace illicit 
financial flows in a timely fashion and firmly declare that the United 
States will not be a safe haven for criminals and terrorists looking to 
disguise their identities for nefarious purposes.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See FATF, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist 
Financing Measures United States Mutual Evaluation Report (2016), p. 
4 (key findings) and Ch. 7., available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/MER-United-States-2016.pdf.
    \30\ Id., p. 153.
    \31\ U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General 
Leslie Caldwell of the Criminal Division and Acting Assistant 
Attorney General Mary McCord of the National Security Division, 
Financial Action Task Force Report Recognizes U.S. Anti-Money 
Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Leadership, but Action is 
Needed on Beneficial Ownership, (December 1, 2016), available at 
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/financial-action-task-force-report-recognizes-us-anti-money-laundering-and-counter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the CDD Rule increased transparency by requiring the 
collection of BOI by covered financial institutions at the time of an 
account opening, the Rule did not address the collection of BOI at the 
time of a legal entity's formation. Following the issuance of the 2016 
FATF Report, Treasury and Department of Justice officials remained 
committed to working with Congress on beneficial ownership legislation 
that would require companies to report adequate, accurate, and current 
beneficial ownership information at the time of a company's formation. 
In addition, between the initial 2008 Incorporation Transparency and 
Law Enforcement Assistance Act \32\ and the 2016 FATF Report, 
bipartisan beneficial ownership registry legislation continued to be 
introduced in each Congress. The introduction of the Corporate 
Transparency Act of 2017 in June 2017 (in the U.S. House of 
Representatives) and August 2017 (in the U.S. Senate) \33\ followed the 
2016 FATF Report. In November 2017, testimony at a Senate Judiciary 
Committee hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Jennifer 
Fowler, head of the U.S. FATF delegation during the 2016 FATF Report, 
highlighted the significant vulnerability identified by FATF, noting 
that ``this has permitted criminals to shield their true identities 
when forming companies and accessing our financial system.'' She also 
remarked that, while Treasury's CDD Rule was an important step forward, 
more remained to be done working with Congress to find a solution to 
collecting BOI.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 23.
    \33\ Corporate Transparency Act of 2017, H.R. 3089 115th Cong. 
(2017); Corporate Transparency Act of 2017, S. 1717 115th Cong. 
(2017).
    \34\ U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Jennifer 
Fowler, Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Terrorist Financing and 
Financial Crimes, Senate Judiciary Committee (November 28, 2017), 
available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Fowler%20Testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the years, Treasury and Department of Justice officials 
repeatedly and publicly articulated the need for the United States to 
enhance and improve authorities to collect BOI. In February 2018, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General M. Kendall Day testified at a 
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on beneficial ownership reporting 
that ``[t]he pervasive use of front companies, shell companies, 
nominees, or other means to conceal the true beneficial owners of 
assets is one of the greatest loopholes in this country's AML regime.'' 
\35\ In December 2019, FinCEN Director Kenneth Blanco noted that 
``[t]he lack of a requirement to collect information about who really 
owns and controls a business and its assets at company formation is a 
dangerous and widening gap in our national security apparatus.'' \36\ 
He also highlighted how this gap has been addressed in part through the 
CDD Rule and how much more work needed to be done, stating that ``[t]he 
next critical step to closing this national security gap is collecting 
beneficial ownership information at the corporate formation stage. If 
beneficial ownership information were required at company formation, it 
would be harder and more costly for criminals, kleptocrats, and 
terrorists to hide their bad acts, and for foreign states to avoid 
detection and scrutiny. This would help deter bad actors accessing our 
financial system in the first place, denying them the ability to profit 
and benefit from its power while threatening our national security and 
putting people at risk.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ U.S. Department of Justice, Statement of M. Kendall Day, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United 
States Senate, for a Hearing Entitled ``Beneficial Ownership: 
Fighting Illicit International Financial Networks Through 
Transparency,'' presented February 6, 2018, p. 3, available at 
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/02-06-18%20Day%20Testimony.pdf.
    \36\ FinCEN, Prepared Remarks of FinCEN Director Kenneth A. 
Blanco, delivered at the American Bankers Association/American Bar 
Association Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference, (December 10, 
2019), available at https://www.fincen.gov/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-fincen-director-kenneth-blanco-delivered-american-bankers.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Continuing its analysis of the use of shell and front companies to 
hide ill-gotten gains, in its 2018 National Money Laundering Risk 
Assessment, and in its 2018 and 2020 National Strategies for Combating 
Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (``2018 Illicit Financing 
Strategy'' and ``2020 Illicit Financing Strategy,'' respectively), the 
Department of the Treasury discussed the money laundering risks 
inherent in the United States' lack of a comprehensive beneficial 
ownership reporting regime.\38\ In the 2018 National Money Laundering 
Risk Assessment, Treasury highlighted a number of cases where shell and 
front companies were used in the United States to disguise funds 
generated in Medicare and Medicaid fraud, trade-based money laundering, 
or drug trafficking, among other crimes.\39\ In the 2018 Illicit 
Financing Strategy, Treasury flagged the use of shell companies by 
Russian organized crime groups in the United States, as well as the 
Iranian Government's use of shell companies to obfuscate the source of 
funds and its role as it tried to generate revenue.\40\ The 2020 
Illicit Financing Strategy cited the lack of a requirement to collect 
BOI at the time of company formation and after changes in ownership as 
one of the most significant vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial 
system.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See e.g., id., p. 28, and U.S. Department of the Treasury, 
National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit 
Financing (2020) (``2020 Illicit Financing Strategy''), pp. 13-14, 
27, 34, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf.
    \39\ U.S. Department of the Treasury, National Money Laundering 
Risk Assessment (2018), pp. 28-30, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-18.pdf.
    \40\ U.S. Department of the Treasury, National Strategy for 
Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (2018), pp. 20, 47, 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/nationalstrategyforcombatingterroristandotherillicitfinancing.pdf.
    \41\ 2020 Illicit Financing Strategy, supra note 35, p. 12, 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, Congress enacted the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 
2020 (the ``AML Act''), of which the CTA is a part.\42\ Congress 
explained that among

[[Page 69925]]

other purposes, the AML Act was meant to ``improve transparency for 
national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies and 
financial institutions concerning corporate structures and insight into 
the flow of illicit funds through those structures'' and ``discourage 
the use of shell corporations as a tool to disguise and move illicit 
funds.'' \43\ As part of its ongoing efforts to implement the AML Act, 
FinCEN published in June 2021 the first national AML/CFT priorities, 
further highlighting the use of shell companies by human traffickers, 
smugglers, and weapons proliferators, among others, to generate 
revenues and transfer funds in support of illicit conduct.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 was enacted as 
Division F, Sec. Sec.  6001-6511, of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 
116-283 (2021).
    \43\ Id., Section 6002(5)(A)-(B).
    \44\ FinCEN, Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing 
of Terrorism Priorities (June 30, 2021), pp. 11-12, available at 
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/AML_CFT%20Priorities%20(June%2030%2C%202021).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. National Security and Law Enforcement Implications of Legal 
Entities With Anonymous Beneficial Owners
    While many legal entities are used for legitimate purposes, they 
can also be misused, as highlighted above and as Congress recognized in 
the CTA.\45\ Corrupt actors and their financial facilitators, as a 
general matter, take advantage of the administrative ease of entity 
formation, the low cost, and the lack of information needed to 
establish such structures in the United States. Those actors then use 
the resulting anonymity and perceived legitimacy afforded to legal 
entities, such as shell companies, to disguise and convert the proceeds 
of crime before introducing them into the financial system. For 
example, such legal entities are used to: (1) Obscure the proceeds of 
bribery and large-scale corruption, money laundering, narcotics 
offenses, terrorist or proliferation financing, and human trafficking; 
(2) disguise efforts to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections and 
institutions; and (3) conduct other threatening and illegal activities. 
The ability of malign actors to hide behind opaque corporate 
structures, including anonymous shell and front companies, and to 
generate funding to finance their illicit activities continues to be a 
significant threat to the national security of the United States. The 
lack of a centralized BOI repository accessible to law enforcement and 
the intelligence community not only erodes the safety and security of 
our nation, but also undermines the U.S. Government's ability to 
address these threats to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ ``[Ma]lign actors seek to conceal their ownership of 
corporations, limited liability companies, or other similar entities 
in the United States to facilitate illicit activity, including money 
laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation financing, 
serious tax fraud, human and drug trafficking, counterfeiting, 
piracy, securities fraud, financial fraud, and acts of foreign 
corruption[.]'' CTA, Section 6402(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the United States, the deliberate misuse of legal entities, 
including corporations and limited liability companies, continues to 
significantly enable money laundering and other illicit financial 
activity and national security threats. Treasury noted in its 2020 
Illicit Financing Strategy that ``[m]isuse of legal entities to hide a 
criminal beneficial owner or illegal source of funds continues to be a 
common, if not the dominant, feature of illicit finance schemes, 
especially those involving money laundering, predicate offences, tax 
evasion, and proliferation financing . . . A Treasury study based on a 
statistically significant sample of adjudicated IRS cases from 2016-
2019 found legal entities were used in a substantial proportion of the 
reviewed cases to perpetrate tax evasion and fraud. According to 
federal prosecutors and law enforcement, large-scale schemes that 
generate substantial proceeds for perpetrators and smaller white-collar 
cases alike routinely involve shell companies, either in the underlying 
criminal activity or subsequent laundering.'' \46\ The Drug Enforcement 
Administration also recently highlighted that drug trafficking 
organizations (DTOs) use shell and front companies to commingle illicit 
drug proceeds with legitimate revenue of front companies, thereby 
enabling the DTOs to launder their drug proceeds.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 2020 Illicit Financing Strategy, supra note 35, pp. 13-14, 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf.
    \47\ Drug Enforcement Administration, 2020 Drug Enforcement 
Administration National Drug Threat Assessment (``DEA 2020 NDTA''), 
pp. 87-88 (2020), available at https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/DIR-008-212020NationalDrugThreatAssessment_WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, in a joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and 
Internal Revenue Service--Criminal Investigations (IRS-CI) 
investigation, the Department of Justice filed civil forfeiture 
complaints aggregating to $1.7 billion under the Kleptocracy Asset 
Recovery Initiative related to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) 
investigation. From 2009 through 2015, more than $4.5 billion in funds 
belonging to 1MDB was allegedly misappropriated by high-level officials 
of 1MDB and their associates. 1MDB was created by the Government of 
Malaysia to promote economic development in Malaysia through global 
partnerships and foreign direct investment, and the associated funds 
were intended to be used for improving the well-being of the Malaysian 
people. However, using fraudulent documents and representations, the 
co-conspirators allegedly laundered the funds through a series of 
complex transactions and shell companies with bank accounts located in 
the United States and abroad. These transactions allegedly served to 
conceal the origin, source and ownership of the funds, and ultimately 
passed through U.S. financial institutions to then be used to acquire 
and invest in assets located in the United States and overseas. 
Included in the forfeiture were multiple luxury properties in New York 
City, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, and London, mostly titled in the name 
of shell companies, as well as paintings by Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, a 
yacht, several items of extravagant jewelry, and numerous other items 
of personal property. The investigation into the location and holders 
of the assets associated with the alleged 1MDB scheme was made much 
more difficult by the shell companies with connections in foreign 
destinations.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ FBI, Testimony of Steven M. D'Antuono, Section Chief, 
Criminal Investigative Division, ``Combatting Illicit Financing by 
Anonymous Shell Companies'' (May 21, 2019), available at https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/combating-illicit-financing-by-anonymous-shell-companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shell companies also are used to evade sanctions imposed by the 
U.S. Government, thereby endangering U.S. national security. In a 2020 
bipartisan report, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
detailed, for example, how after Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) had sanctioned certain Russian oligarchs in connection 
with Russia's annexation of Crimea and for supporting Russian President 
Vladimir Putin,\49\ those sanctioned oligarchs used shell companies to 
engage in a total of $91 million in transactions, and to purchase $18 
million dollars in high-value art in the United States.\50\ In a

[[Page 69926]]

more recent example, in a federal criminal complaint unsealed in March 
2021, the Department of Justice charged 10 Iranian nationals with 
running a nearly 20-year-long scheme to evade U.S. sanctions on the 
Government of Iran by disguising more than $300 million worth of 
transactions--including the purchase of two $25 million oil tankers--on 
Iran's behalf through front companies in the San Fernando Valley, 
Canada, Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates.\51\ The U.S. State 
Department has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. During 
the scheme, the defendants allegedly created and used more than 70 
front companies, money service businesses, and exchange houses in the 
United States, Iran, Canada, the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong. 
The defendants also allegedly made false representations to financial 
institutions to disguise more than $300 million worth of transactions 
on Iran's behalf, using money wired in U.S. dollars and sent through 
U.S.-based banks.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ U.S. Department of Treasury, Treasury Sanctions Russian 
Officials, Members of the Russian Leadership's Inner Circle, and an 
Entity for Involvement in the Situation in Ukraine (March 20, 2014), 
available at https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl23331.aspx.
    \50\ United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, Staff Report: The Art Industry And U.S. Policies That 
Undermine Sanctions (July 2020), pp. 7 and 144, available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-07-29%20PSI%20Staff%20Report%20-%20The%20Art%20Industry%20and%20U.S.%20Policies%20that%20Undermine%20Sanctions.pdf.
    \51\ U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. Attorney's Office, Central 
District of California), Iranian Nationals Charged with Conspiring 
to Evade U.S. Sanctions on Iran by Disguising $300 Million in 
Transactions Over Two Decades (March 19, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/iranian-nationals-charged-conspiring-evade-us-sanctions-iran-disguising-300-million.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. The Law Enforcement Need for Improved BOI Collection
    Although the U.S. Government has tools capable of obtaining some 
beneficial ownership information, their limitations and the time and 
cost required to successfully deploy them demonstrate the significant 
benefits that a centralized repository of information would provide law 
enforcement. The CTA explains that ``malign actors seek to conceal 
their ownership of corporations, limited liability companies, or other 
similar entities in the United States to facilitate illicit activity,'' 
yet ``most or all States do not require information about the 
beneficial owners of the corporations, limited liability companies, or 
other similar entities formed under the laws of the State.'' The CTA 
continues, ``money launderers and others involved in commercial 
activity intentionally conduct transactions through corporate 
structures in order to evade detection, and may layer such structures . 
. . across various secretive jurisdictions such that each time an 
investigator obtains ownership records for a domestic or foreign 
entity, the newly identified entity is yet another corporate entity, 
necessitating a repeat of the same process.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ CTA, Section 6402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Kenneth A. Blanco, then-Director of FinCEN observed in testimony 
to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and 
based on his experience as a former state and Federal prosecutor, 
identifying the ultimate beneficial owner of a shell or front company 
in the United States ``often requires human source information, grand 
jury subpoenas, surveillance operations, witness interviews, search 
warrants, and foreign legal assistance requests to get behind the 
outward facing structure of these shell companies. This takes an 
enormous amount of time--time that could be used to further other 
important and necessary aspects of an investigation--and wastes 
resources, or prevents investigators from getting to other equally 
important investigations. The collection of beneficial ownership 
information at the time of company formation would significantly reduce 
the amount of time currently required to research who is behind 
anonymous shell companies, and at the same time, prevent the flight of 
assets and the destruction of evidence.'' \54\ He also noted during the 
testimony that ``[i]dentifying and disrupting illicit financial 
networks not only assists in the prosecution of criminal activity of 
all kinds, but also allows law enforcement to halt and dismantle 
criminal organizations and other bad actors before they harm our 
citizens or our financial system.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ FinCEN, Testimony for the Record, Kenneth A. Blanco, 
Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs (May 21, 2019), available at https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Blanco%20Testimony%205-21-19.pdf.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FBI's Steven M. D'Antuono elaborated on these difficulties, 
testifying before the Senate Banking Housing and Urban Affairs 
Committee in 2019 that ``[t]he process for the production of records 
can be lengthy, anywhere from a few weeks to many years, and . . . . 
can be extended drastically when it is necessary to obtain information 
from other countries . . . . [I]f an investigator obtains the ownership 
records, either from a domestic or foreign entity, the investigator may 
discover that the owner of the identified corporate entity is an 
additional corporate entity, necessitating the same process for the 
newly discovered corporate entity. Many professional launderers and 
others involved in illicit finance intentionally layer ownership and 
financial transactions in order to reduce transparency of transactions. 
As it stands, it is a facially effective way to delay an 
investigation.'' \56\ D'Antuono acknowledged that these challenges may 
be even more stark for state, local, and Tribal law enforcement 
agencies that may not have the same resources as their federal 
counterparts to undertake long and costly investigations to identify 
the beneficial owners of these entities.\57\ During the testimony, he 
noted that requiring the disclosure of BOI by legal entities and the 
creation of a central BOI repository available to law enforcement and 
regulators could address these challenges.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ FBI, Testimony of Steven M. D'Antuono, Section Chief, 
Criminal Investigative Division, ``Combatting Illicit Financing by 
Anonymous Shell Companies'' (May 21, 2019), available at https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/combating-illicit-financing-by-anonymous-shell-companies.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The process of obtaining BOI through grand jury subpoenas and other 
means can be time consuming and of limited utility in some cases. Grand 
jury subpoenas, for example, require an underlying grand jury 
investigation into a possible violation of law. In addition, the law 
enforcement officer or investigator must work with a prosecutor's 
office, such as a U.S. Attorney's Office, to open a grand jury 
investigation, obtain the grand jury subpoena, and issue it on behalf 
of the grand jury. The investigator also needs to determine the proper 
recipient of the subpoena and coordinate service, which raises 
additional complications in cases where there is excessive layering of 
corporate structures to hide the identity of the ultimate beneficial 
owners. In some cases, however, BOI still may not be attainable via 
grand jury subpoena because it does not exist. For example, because 
most states do not require the disclosure of BOI when forming or 
registering an entity, BOI cannot be obtained from the secretary of 
state or similar office. Furthermore, many states permit corporations 
to acquire property without disclosing BOI, and therefore BOI cannot be 
obtained from property records.
    FinCEN's existing regulatory tools also have significant 
limitations. The current CDD Rule, for example, requires that certain 
types of U.S. financial institutions identify and verify the beneficial 
owners of legal entity customers at the time those financial 
institutions open a new account for a legal entity customer,\59\ but 
the rule

[[Page 69927]]

provides only a partial solution.\60\ The information about beneficial 
owners of certain U.S. entities is generally not comprehensive and not 
reported to the Government, and therefore not immediately available to 
law enforcement, intelligence, and national security agencies. Other 
FinCEN authorities--geographic targeting orders \61\ and the so-called 
``311 measures'' (i.e., special measures imposed on jurisdictions, 
financial institutions, or international transactions of primary money 
laundering concern) \62\--offer temporary and targeted tools. Neither 
provides law enforcement the ability to quickly and efficiently follow 
the money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The CDD Rule NPRM contained a requirement that covered 
financial institutions conduct ongoing monitoring to maintain and 
update customer information on a risk basis, specifying that 
customer information includes the beneficial owners of legal entity 
customers. As noted in the supplementary material to the final rule, 
FinCEN did not construe this obligation as imposing a categorical, 
retroactive requirement to identify and verify BOI for existing 
legal entity customers. Rather, these provisions reflect the 
conclusion that a financial institution should obtain BOI from 
existing legal entity customers when, in the course of its normal 
monitoring, the financial institution detects information relevant 
to assessing or reevaluating the risk of such customer. Final Rule, 
Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions, 81 
FR 29398, 29404 (May 11, 2016).
    \60\ See U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment Working Group, 
U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment (2005), pp. 48-49, available 
at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/documents/mlta.pdf. See also Congressional Research Service, 
Miller, Rena S. and Rosen, Liana W., Beneficial Ownership 
Transparency in Corporate Formation, Shell Companies, Real Estate, 
and Financial Transactions (July 8, 2019), available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45798.
    \61\ 31 U.S.C. 5326(a); 31 CFR 1010.370.
    \62\ 31 U.S.C. 5318A, as added by section 311 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act (Pub. L. 107-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shell companies, in particular, demonstrate how critical a 
centralized database of beneficial ownership information is for 
investigators. Treasury's 2020 Illicit Financing Strategy addressed in 
part how current sources of information are inadequate to prosecute the 
use of shell entities to hide ill-gotten gains. In particular, while 
law enforcement agencies may be able to use subpoenas and access public 
databases to collect information to identify the owners of corporate 
structures, the 2020 Illicit Financing Strategy explained that 
``[t]here are numerous challenges for federal law enforcement when the 
true beneficiaries of illicit proceeds are concealed through shell or 
front companies.'' \63\ In May 2019 testimony before the Senate 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, then-FinCEN Director 
Blanco provided examples of criminals who used anonymous shell 
corporations, including: ``A Russian arms dealer nicknamed `The 
Merchant of Death,' who sold weapons to a terrorist organization intent 
on killing Americans. Executives from a supposed investment group that 
perpetrated a Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 8,000 investors, 
most of them elderly, of over $1 billion. A complex nationwide criminal 
network that distributed oxycodone by flying young girls and other 
couriers carrying pills all over the United States. A New York company 
that was used to conceal Iranian assets, including those designated for 
providing financial services to entities involved in Iran's nuclear and 
ballistic missile program. A former college athlete who became the head 
of a gambling enterprise and a violent drug kingpin who sold 
recreational drugs and steroids to college and professional football 
players. A corrupt Venezuelan treasurer who received over $1 billion in 
bribes.'' He continued, ``These crimes are very different, as are the 
dangers they pose and the damage caused to innocent and unsuspecting 
people. The defendants and bad actors come from every walk of life and 
every corner of the globe. The victims--both direct and indirect--
include Americans exposed to terrorist acts; elderly people losing life 
savings; a young mother becoming addicted to opioids; a college athlete 
coerced to pay extraordinary debts by violent threats; and an entire 
country driven to devastation by corruption. But all these crimes have 
one thing in common: shell corporations were used to hide, support, 
prolong, or foster the crimes and bad acts committed against them. 
These criminal conspiracies thrived at least in part because the 
perpetrators could hide their identities and illicit assets behind 
shell companies. Had beneficial ownership information been available, 
and more quickly accessible to law enforcement and others, it would 
have been harder and more costly for the criminals to hide what they 
were doing. Law enforcement could have been more effective and 
efficient in preventing these crimes from occurring in the first place, 
or could have intercepted them sooner and prevented the scope of harm 
these criminals caused from spreading.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 2020 Illicit Financing Strategy, supra note 35, p. 14, 
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/National-Strategy-to-Counter-Illicit-Financev2.pdf.
    \64\ FinCEN, Testimony for the Record, Kenneth A. Blanco, 
Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs (May 21, 2019), available at https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Blanco%20Testimony%205-21-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the same hearing in front of the Senate's Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in May 2019, the FBI's D'Antuono 
explained that ``[t]he strategic use of [shell and front companies] 
makes investigations exponentially more difficult and laborious. The 
burden of uncovering true beneficial owners can often handicap or delay 
investigations, frequently requiring duplicative, slow-moving legal 
process in several jurisdictions to gain the necessary information. 
This practice is both time consuming and costly. The ability to easily 
identify the beneficial owners of these shell companies would allow the 
FBI and other law enforcement agencies to quickly and efficiently 
mitigate the threats posed by the illicit movement of the succeeding 
funds. In addition to diminishing regulators', law enforcement 
agencies', and financial institutions' ability to identify and mitigate 
illicit finance, the lack of a law requiring production of beneficial 
ownership information attracts unlawful actors, domestic and abroad, to 
abuse our state-based registration system and the U.S. financial 
industry.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ FBI, Testimony of Steven M. D'Antuono, Section Chief, 
Criminal Investigative Division, ``Combatting Illicit Financing by 
Anonymous Shell Companies'' (May 21, 2019), available at https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/combating-illicit-financing-by-anonymous-shell-companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2020, then-Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin 
testified at a Senate hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2021 
Budget that the lack of information on who controls shell companies is 
``a glaring hole in our system.'' \66\ In his December 9, 2020, floor 
statement accompanying the AML Act, Senator Sherrod Brown, the then-
Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs and one of the primary authors of the enacted CTA, stated that 
the reporting of BOI ``will help address longstanding problems for U.S. 
law enforcement. It will help them investigate and prosecute cases 
involving terrorism, weapons proliferation, drug trafficking, money 
laundering, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, human trafficking, and other 
crimes. And it will provide ready access to this information under 
long-established and effective privacy rules. Without these reforms, 
criminals, terrorists, and even rogue nations could continue to use 
layer upon layer of shell companies to disguise and launder illicit 
funds. That makes it harder to hold bad actors accountable, and puts

[[Page 69928]]

us all at risk.'' \67\ Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Charles Grassley, 
Ron Wyden, and Marco Rubio, who were co-sponsors of the CTA and its 
predecessor legislation in the Senate, commented on the ANPRM that 
``the CTA marked the culmination of a years-long effort in Congress to 
combat money laundering, international corruption, and kleptocracy by 
requiring certain companies to disclose their beneficial owners to law 
enforcement, national security officials, and financial institutions 
with customer due diligence obligations.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Steven T. Mnuchin (Secretary, Department of the Treasury), 
Transcript: Hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2021 Budget 
before the Senate Committee on Finance (February 12, 2020),'' p. 25, 
available at https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/45146.pdf.
    \67\ Senator Sherrod Brown, ``National Defense Authorization 
Act,'' Congressional Record 166:208 (December 9, 2020), p. S7311, 
available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-12-09/pdf/CREC-2020-12-09.pdf.
    \68\ Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Chuck Grassley, Ron Wyden, and 
Marco Rubio, Letter to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 
(May 5, 2021), available at https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ceb65708-7973-4b66-8bd4-c8254509a6f3/13D55FBEE293CAAF52B7317C5CA7E44C.senators-cta-comment-letter-05.04.2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. The United States' Corporate Transparency Measures Within the 
Broader International Framework
    The laundering of illicit proceeds frequently entails cross-border 
transactions involving jurisdictions with weak AML/CFT compliance 
frameworks, as these jurisdictions may present more ready options for 
criminals to place, launder, or store the proceeds of crime. For over a 
decade, through the former Group of Eight (G8), Group of Twenty 
(G20),\69\ FATF, and the Egmont Group,\70\ the global community has 
worked to establish a set of mutual standards to enhance beneficial 
ownership transparency across all jurisdictions. U.S. efforts to 
collect BOI are part of this growing international consensus by 
jurisdictions to enhance beneficial ownership transparency, and will be 
reinforced by similar efforts by foreign jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See, e.g., United States G-8 Action Plan for Transparency 
of Company Ownership and Control (June 2013), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/18/united-states-g-8-action-plan-transparency-company-ownership-and-control; 
G8 Lough Erne Declaration (July 2013), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g8-lough-erne-declaration; G20 High Level 
Principles on Beneficial Ownership (2014), https://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2014/g20_high-level_principles_beneficial_ownership_transparency.pdf ; United 
States Action Plan to Implement the G-20 High Level Principles on 
Beneficial Ownership (Oct. 2015), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/10/16/us-action-plan-implement-g-20-high-level-principles-beneficial-ownership.
    \70\ FATF has also collaborated with the Egmont Group of 
Financial Intelligence Units on a study that identifies key 
techniques used to conceal beneficial ownership and identifies 
issues for consideration that include coordinated national action to 
limit the misuse of legal entities. FATF-Egmont Group, Concealment 
of Beneficial Ownership (2018), https://egmontgroup.org/sites/default/files/filedepot/Concealment_of_BO/FATF-Egmont-Concealment-beneficial-ownership.pdf. The Egmont Group is a body of 166 
Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs); FinCEN is the FIU of the United 
States and a founding member of the Egmont Group. The Egmont Group 
provides a platform for the secure exchange of expertise and 
financial intelligence amongst FIUs to combat money laundering and 
terrorist financing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current lack of a centralized U.S. BOI reporting requirement 
and database makes the United States a jurisdiction of choice to 
establish shell companies that hide the ultimate beneficiaries. This 
makes it easier for bad actors to exploit these companies for the 
placement, laundering, and investment of the proceeds of crime. Global 
financial centers such as the United States are particularly exposed to 
transnational illicit finance threats, as they tend to have 
characteristics--such as extensive links to the international financial 
system, sophisticated financial sectors, and robust institutions--that 
make them appealing destinations for the proceeds of illicit 
transnational activity. Corrupt foreign officials, sanctions evaders, 
and narco-traffickers, among others, exploit the current gap in the 
U.S. BOI reporting regime to park their ill-gotten gains in a stable 
jurisdiction, thereby exposing the United States to serious national 
security threats. For example, the Department of Justice indicted the 
alleged heads of the Los Zetas Mexican drug cartel for their roles in 
using the race horse industry and shell companies to launder millions 
of dollars in drug proceeds.\71\ The FBI's D'Antuono noted that the 
wide use of shell companies, in both the United States and Mexico, made 
it challenging for banks and investigators to associate the drug cartel 
with horses and bank accounts. If not for solid witness testimony and 
extremely diligent forensic accounting, it would have been difficult to 
prove the case, he noted.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ FBI, Testimony of Steven M. D'Antuono, Section Chief, 
Criminal Investigative Division, ``Combatting Illicit Financing by 
Anonymous Shell Companies'' (May 21, 2019), available at https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/combating-illicit-financing-by-anonymous-shell-companies.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the United States' lack of a centralized BOI 
reporting requirement constitutes a weak link in the integrity of the 
global financial system. In the CTA, Congress explained that the 
statute is necessary to ``bring the United States into compliance with 
international [AML/CFT] standards.'' \73\ Many countries, including the 
United Kingdom and all member states of the European Union, have 
incorporated elements derived from these standards into their domestic 
legal or regulatory frameworks. At the same time, FATF mutual 
evaluations show that jurisdictions, including the United States, still 
have work to do to meet the standards for beneficial ownership 
transparency. Establishing the requirements to report BOI to a 
centralized database at FinCEN is another step in Treasury's decades-
long efforts to strengthen the U.S. and global financial systems and to 
combat money laundering and corruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ CTA, Section 6402(5)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The CTA

    The CTA added a new section, 31 U.S.C. 5336, to the BSA to address 
the broader objectives of enhancing beneficial ownership transparency 
while minimizing the burden on the regulated community.
    In brief, 31 U.S.C. 5336 requires certain types of domestic and 
foreign entities, called ``reporting companies,'' to submit specified 
BOI to FinCEN. FinCEN is authorized to share this BOI with certain 
Government agencies, financial institutions, and regulators, subject to 
appropriate protocols.\74\ The requirement for reporting companies to 
submit BOI takes effect ``on the effective date of the regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury under [31 U.S.C. 5336].'' 
\75\ Reporting companies formed or registered after the effective date 
will need to submit the requisite BOI to FinCEN at the time of 
formation, while preexisting reporting companies will have a specified 
period to comply and report.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See generally 31 U.S.C. 5336(b), (c).
    \75\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(5).
    \76\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B), (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CTA reporting requirements target generally smaller, more 
lightly regulated entities that may not be subject to any other BOI 
reporting requirements. In contrast, the CTA exempts certain more 
heavily regulated entities from its reporting requirements, including 
to avoid imposing duplicative requirements.
    The provision at 31 U.S.C. 5336 requires reporting companies to 
submit to FinCEN, for each beneficial owner and company applicant, the 
individual's full legal name, date of birth, current residential or 
business street address, and either a unique identifying number from an 
acceptable identification document (e.g., a passport) or a FinCEN 
identifier--four readily accessible pieces of information that should 
not be unduly burdensome for individuals to produce, or for reporting 
companies to collect and submit to FinCEN.\77\ A FinCEN identifier is a 
unique identifying number that FinCEN will

[[Page 69929]]

issue to individuals or entities upon request.\78\ In certain 
instances, the FinCEN identifier provides a substitute to individuals 
who do not wish to provide their names, birth dates, or addresses to a 
reporting company.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2).
    \78\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \79\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the sensitivity of the reportable information, the CTA 
imposes strict confidentiality, security, and access restrictions on 
the data. FinCEN is authorized to disclose reportable BOI to a 
statutorily defined group of governmental authorities and financial 
institutions, in limited circumstances. Federal agencies, for example, 
may only obtain access to BOI when acting in furtherance of national 
security, intelligence, or law enforcement activity.\80\ State, local, 
and Tribal law enforcement agencies require ``a court of competent 
jurisdiction'' to authorize them to seek BOI as part of a criminal or 
civil investigation.\81\ Foreign government access is limited to 
foreign law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges in specified 
circumstances.\82\ FinCEN may also disclose reported BOI to financial 
institutions that need such BOI to facilitate compliance with customer 
due diligence requirements under applicable law, with the consent of 
the reporting company.\83\ Moreover, a financial institution's 
regulator can obtain BOI that has been provided to a regulated 
financial institution for the purpose of performing regulatory 
oversight that is specific to that financial institution.\84\ Taken 
together, these measures, along with other restrictions, requirements, 
and security protocols delineated in the CTA, will help to ensure that 
BOI collected under 31 U.S.C. 5336 is only used for statutorily 
described purposes. As noted above, FinCEN intends to address the 
regulatory requirements related to access to information reported 
pursuant to the CTA through a future rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(i)(I).
    \81\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(i)(II).
    \82\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(ii).
    \83\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(iii).
    \84\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CTA also requires that FinCEN rescind and revise portions of 
the current CDD Rule within one year after the effective date of the 
BOI reporting rule.\85\ The CTA does not direct FinCEN to rescind the 
requirement for financial institutions to identify and verify the 
beneficial owners of legal entity customers under 31 CFR 1010.230(a), 
but does direct FinCEN to rescind the beneficial ownership 
identification and verification requirements of 31 CFR 1010.230(b)-
(j).\86\ The CTA identifies three purposes for this revision: (1) To 
bring the rule into conformity with the AML Act as a whole, including 
the CTA; (2) to account for financial institutions' access to BOI 
reported to FinCEN ``in order to confirm the beneficial ownership 
information provided directly to the financial institutions'' for AML/
CFT and customer due diligence purposes; and (3) to reduce unnecessary 
or duplicative burdens on financial institutions and legal entity 
customers.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(1).
    \86\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(2). The CTA orders the rescission of 
paragraphs (b) through (j) directly (``the Secretary of the Treasury 
shall rescind paragraphs (b) through (j)'') and orders the retention 
of paragraph (a) by a negative rule of construction (``nothing in 
this section may be construed to authorize the Secretary of the 
Treasury to repeal . . . [31 CFR] 1010.230(a)[.]'').
    \87\ CTA, Section 6403(d)(1)(A)-(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN intends to satisfy the requirements related to the revision 
of the CDD Rule through a future rulemaking process that will provide 
the public with an opportunity to comment on the effect of the final 
provisions of the beneficial ownership reporting rule on financial 
institutions' customer due diligence obligations. The rulemaking 
process will also allow FinCEN to reach informed conclusions about the 
proper scope of the CDD Rule.\88\ FinCEN anticipates that this 
rulemaking process will touch on the issue of the interplay between the 
FinCEN-hosted BOI information technology (IT) system and financial 
institutions' diligence efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Final Rule, Customer Due Diligence Requirements for 
Financial Institutions, 81 FR 29398-29402 (May 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On April 5, 2021, FinCEN published an ANPRM on the BOI reporting 
requirements.\89\ The ANPRM sought public input in five open-ended 
categories of questions, including on clarifying key definitions, 
developing reporting procedures, and establishing compliance standards 
for reporting companies. The ANPRM also sought comment on FinCEN's 
implementation of the related provisions of the CTA that govern 
FinCEN's maintenance and disclosure of BOI subject to appropriate 
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ ANPRM, Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting 
Requirements, 86 FR 17557-17565 (April 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the ANPRM, FinCEN received 220 public comments from 
a wide variety of commenters, including businesses, civil society 
organizations, trade associations, law firms, secretaries of state and 
other state officials, Indian Tribes, Members of Congress, and numerous 
individuals. Commenters expressed a range of opinions, frequently 
conflicting, about which entities should report, what information they 
should report, about whom they should report, how to ensure that the 
implementation of the CTA generates highly useful data for authorized 
users, how to minimize burden on reporting companies, and more.
    FinCEN has considered all of the comments that it received in 
response to the ANPRM in drafting this proposed rule. The section-by-
section analysis that follows incorporates discussion of certain issues 
raised by commenters.

D. Outreach

    FinCEN has also engaged in outreach with a variety of potential 
stakeholders, including state and Tribal entities (e.g., secretaries of 
state), law enforcement, representatives of civil society 
organizations, financial institution trade associations, and broader 
business trade associations, to make them aware of the CTA and 
encourage them to provide written comments during the rulemaking 
process to ensure FinCEN's consideration of their perspectives.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This proposed rule would revise the regulations implementing the 
BSA by adding a new reporting requirement at Sec.  1010.380 (``Reports 
of beneficial ownership information''), in subpart C (``Reports 
Required to be Made'') of part 1010 (``General Provisions'') of chapter 
X (``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network'') of title 31, Code of 
Federal Regulations.
    The analysis that follows addresses the key elements of the 
proposed rule: (A) Information to be reported; (B) beneficial owners; 
(C) company applicant; (D) reporting company; (E) timing, format, and 
mechanics of reports; (F) reporting violations; and (G) definitions. 
The analysis has a final subsection (H) that discusses the issue of the 
effective date of the regulation.

A. Information To Be Reported

    The CTA requires each reporting company to submit to FinCEN a 
report identifying each beneficial owner of the reporting company and 
each company applicant by: (1) Full legal name, (2) date of birth, (3) 
current residential or business street address, and (4) unique 
identifying number from an acceptable identification document; or, if 
this

[[Page 69930]]

information has already been provided to FinCEN, by a FinCEN 
identifier.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(A) (reporting requirement); 31 U.S.C. 
5336(b)(2) (required information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement this requirement, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b) 
specifies that each report or application under that section must be 
filed with FinCEN in the form and manner FinCEN prescribes, and each 
person filing such report shall certify that the report is accurate and 
complete.\91\ It then sets forth the requirement for reporting 
companies to report to FinCEN identifying information about their 
beneficial owners, the company applicant, and the reporting company 
itself. Finally, it outlines certain special reporting rules and sets 
forth the requirements for obtaining a FinCEN identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Commenters to the ANPRM discussed the potential for FinCEN 
to require an attestation of accuracy or other certification on 
either a one-time or periodic basis, including financial institution 
trade associations and civil society organizations, which argued 
that such a requirement would encourage reporting companies to keep 
their information up to date. However, others argued that FinCEN 
lacks the statutory authority to include such a requirement in the 
regulations. FinCEN invites further comments on its proposal that a 
person filing a report or application with FinCEN pursuant to 31 CFR 
1010.380(a) shall certify that the report is accurate and complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Information To Be Reported on Beneficial Owners and Company 
Applicants
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(ii) sets forth the specific items of 
information that a reporting company must report about each individual 
beneficial owner and each individual company applicant.\92\ The 
language is drawn nearly verbatim from 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A). In 
addition, for clarity, it incorporates the statutory definition of 
``acceptable identification document,'' 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(1), rather 
than leaving the reader to identify the cross-reference based on the 
CTA's reference to a ``unique identifier number from an acceptable 
identification document.'' \93\ Also for clarity, the proposed rule 
consolidates discussion of the FinCEN identifier in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ ``Company applicant'' is the proposed rule's term for what 
the statute refers to as the ``applicant.'' See 31 U.S.C. 
5336(a)(2).
    \93\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A)(iv)(I) (for information 
submission requirement); 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(1) (for definition of 
``acceptable identification document''). The definition of 
``acceptable identification document'' is not inserted entirely 
verbatim because FinCEN has made certain minor changes to the 
statutory language to clarify the text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also clarifies what address information should be 
reported. The statute requires reporting companies to identify 
beneficial owners and applicants by their ``residential or business 
street address.'' 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A)(iii). The statutory 
requirement does not specify when or whether one type of address should 
be used in preference to another or resolve more specific questions 
regarding secondary addresses or whether addresses should be domestic, 
if possible, or can be foreign. FinCEN considered leaving to the 
reporting company the choice of which address to report, but assessed 
that this would unduly diminish the usefulness of the reported 
information to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement 
activity. Beneficial owners are of interest because of their economic 
status as persons who own or control a reporting company. Business 
addresses or secondary residence addresses are of some investigative 
value as points of contact in the event that an investigation requires 
follow-up, but such addresses do not definitively establish a 
beneficial owner's primary residence jurisdiction. A beneficial owner's 
residential address for tax residency purposes, by contrast, is of 
value both as a point of contact and for tax administration 
purposes.\94\ Moreover, multiple persons may be associated with a 
business address. FinCEN believes that the residential street address 
will therefore be more useful for establishing the unambiguous identity 
of an identified beneficial owner. The reporting of a residential 
street address will also likely allow for easier follow-up by law 
enforcement in the event of investigative need. Accordingly, FinCEN 
believes that requiring the disclosure of beneficial owners' 
residential street address for tax residency purposes is appropriate. 
FinCEN therefore proposes that the reporting company report the 
residential address for tax residency purposes of each beneficial 
owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(5)(B) (``Officers and employees of 
the Department of the Treasury may obtain access to beneficial 
ownership information for tax administration purposes . . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to a company applicant's address, FinCEN proposes a 
bifurcated approach. For company applicants that provide a business 
service as a corporate or formation agent, the reporting company would 
need to report the business address of any company applicant that files 
a document in the course of such individual's business. Company 
applicants that provide a business service as a corporate or formation 
agent are of particular interest because of their role in creating or 
registering reporting companies. While any address for such a company 
applicant is of some value as a point of contact in an inquiry or 
investigation, company applicants who file formation documents in the 
course of their business may be more easily identified by their 
business address. To the extent company applicants make a business of 
filing documents on behalf of many companies, reporting the associated 
business address may provide more useful information to national 
security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies. The business 
address will also allow law enforcement to identify patterns of 
entities that are created or registered by company applicants working 
at the same business address; such patterns would not be easily 
identifiable if the name and address reported is specific to an 
individual operating on a formation agent's behalf. This information 
could provide insight into business practices and relationships between 
individuals and entities, including patterns of entity formation that 
suggest persons are engaged in the business of creating legal entities 
for the purpose of obscuring the beneficiaries of transactions or the 
owners of valuable assets. This information may therefore provide 
valuable information for national security, intelligence, and law 
enforcement activity.
    For all other company applicants, the reporting company would need 
to report the residential street address that the individual uses for 
tax residency purposes. This establishes a uniform rule for the 
selection of addresses to be reported and provides specificity to the 
reporting company for ease of administration. It would also help to 
maximize the benefit to be gained from the reporting of this data 
element because stakeholders will not have to figure out which address 
was reported.
    In addition, the CTA authorizes FinCEN to prescribe procedures and 
standards governing the reports identifying beneficial owners and 
applicants ``by,'' among other things, a ``unique identifying number 
from an acceptable identification document.'' \95\ The CTA does not 
specify how an individual is to be identified ``by'' such number 
``from'' such document. However, the CTA also makes it unlawful to 
``willfully provide, or attempt to provide . . . a false or fraudulent 
identifying photograph or document . . . to FinCEN,'' indicating an 
assumption that identifying photographs or documents would be 
reported.\96\ This provision therefore

[[Page 69931]]

indicates that FinCEN has authority to collect a scanned copy of an 
identification document, along with the document's number, in 
prescribing reporting procedures and standards. Therefore, the proposed 
rule specifies that the reporting company provide a scanned copy of the 
identification document from which the unique identifying number of the 
beneficial owner or company applicant is obtained, in connection with 
reporting that unique number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4), (b)(2)(A)(iv).
    \96\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN believes that the collection of an image would significantly 
contribute to the creation of a highly useful database for law 
enforcement and other authorized users. The image submitted by a 
reporting company in connection with a specific beneficial owner or 
company applicant could help to confirm the accuracy of the reported 
unique identification number because the image would contain the 
number. FinCEN also believes this requirement would make it more 
difficult to provide false identification information because it is 
likely to be significantly more difficult to falsify an image of an 
identification document than to report an inaccurate number. The image 
may also assist law enforcement in identifying an individual because it 
would contain a picture of the individual associated with the 
identifying number, providing further confirmation of the individual's 
identity. While such pictures may already be available to law 
enforcement from existing records associated with the reported 
identification numbers, it would be highly useful for law enforcement 
to obtain such information from a centralized BOI database than to 
obtain the identification number from the BOI database and the picture 
from a different source. FinCEN considered that, as noted by several 
commenters, requiring an image may impose some additional burdens on 
reporting companies (e.g., gathering and submitting images of the 
identification documents for each beneficial owner and company 
applicant). FinCEN anticipates, however, that the burdens should be 
minimal because requesting a copy of an individual's identification 
document appears routine (e.g., to verify an employee's immigration 
status), and technological advances have made it relatively easy for 
individuals to provide scanned images. FinCEN welcomes comments on the 
proposed collection of a scanned copy of an identification document. 
FinCEN recognizes that several commenters encouraged FinCEN to require 
reporting companies to report significantly more information on each 
beneficial owner than is required by statute. For example, various 
commenters suggested FinCEN should require reporting of whether a 
beneficial owner fell under the ``ownership interests'' or 
``substantial control'' components of the definition of ``beneficial 
owner,'' precise reporting of ownership interest percentages, whether 
ownership interests are held directly or indirectly, and other types of 
information. Such additional information might enhance the utility of 
the database to authorized users. FinCEN welcomes further comments on 
the statutory authority for and practical effect of requiring 
additional information to be reported.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(2) would permit a reporting company to 
report the Taxpayer Identification Number \97\ (TIN) of its beneficial 
owners and company applicants on a voluntary basis, solely with the 
prior consent of each individual whose TIN would be reported and with 
such consent to be recorded on a form that FinCEN will provide. While 
the statute requires reporting companies to provide certain specified 
information, it does not prohibit reporting companies from providing 
additional information on a voluntary basis. FinCEN has proposed this 
voluntary reporting option because such information would help ensure 
that the database of beneficial ownership information is highly useful 
for authorized users, in furtherance of the CTA's purpose and mandate. 
For example, having access to a TIN will allow authorized users such as 
FinCEN, law enforcement, investigators, and financial institutions to 
cross-reference other databases and more easily verify the information 
of an individual. FinCEN believes that the inclusion of TIN reporting, 
even if voluntary, may help to raise standards for due diligence and 
transparency expectations for financial institutions and other 
governments. FinCEN is particularly interested in comments on this 
proposal to provide a voluntary mechanism to report beneficial owner 
and company applicant TINs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ A TIN is an identification number used by the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) in the administration of tax laws and assists 
in identifying entities and individuals and distinguishing them from 
one another. See IRS, Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs), 
available at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayer-identification-numbers-tin. A TIN is unique to an 
entity or individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Information To Be Reported on Reporting Companies
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(1)(i) would require reporting companies 
to report certain information to identify the reporting company. While 
the CTA specifies the information required to be reported to ``identify 
each beneficial owner of the applicable reporting company and each 
applicant with respect to that reporting company,'' the CTA does not 
specify what, if any, information a reporting company must report about 
itself.\98\ However, the CTA's express requirement to identify 
beneficial owners and applicants for each reporting company clearly 
implies a requirement to identify the associated company. That implicit 
requirement is confirmed by the structure and overriding objective of 
the CTA, which is to identify the individuals who own, control, and 
register each particular entity, as well as by the CTA's direction to 
``ensure that information is collected in a form and manner that is 
highly useful.'' \99\ Without identifying information about the 
reporting company itself, FinCEN would have no ability to determine the 
entity that is associated with each reported beneficial owner or 
company applicant. For example, an investigator could not determine 
what entities a known drug trafficker uses to launder money. 
Conversely, an investigator also could not determine who owns or 
controls an entity it knows is being used to launder money. This would 
frustrate Congress's express purposes in enacting the CTA and would 
amount to an absurd result.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A).
    \99\ CTA, Section 6402. See also 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(F)(iv)(I), 
(b)(4)(B)(ii), (d)(2)-(3).
    \100\ See, e.g., Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 
564, 575 (1982) (noting that ``interpretations of a statute which 
would produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative 
interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are 
available''); Arkansas Dairy Co-op Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Agr., 573 
F.3d 815, 829 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (rejecting a reading of a statute 
that would produce a ``glaring loophole'' in Congress's instruction 
to an agency); Ass'n of Admin. L. Judges v. FLRA, 397 F.3d 957, 962 
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (``Unless it has been extraordinarily rigid in 
expressing itself to the contrary . . . the Congress is always 
presumed to intend that pointless expenditures of effort be 
avoided.'' (cleaned up)); Pub. Citizen v. Young, 831 F.2d 1108, 1112 
(D.C. Cir. 1987) (explaining that ``a court must look beyond the 
words to the purpose of the act where its literal terms lead to 
absurd or futile results'' (cleaned up)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, to ensure that each reporting company can be identified, 
the proposed regulations would require each reporting company to report 
its name, any alternative names through which the company is engaging 
in business (``d/b/a names''), its business street address, its 
jurisdiction of formation or registration, as well as a unique 
identification number.
    FinCEN believes that a company name alone may not be sufficient

[[Page 69932]]

information to uniquely identify each reporting company and distinguish 
it from other companies with similar names. Companies formed in 
different states may have the same names because the entity formation 
practices of many states require a new entity to choose a legal name 
that is unique within that state but do not require a new entity's 
legal name to be unique within the United States. In addition, 
companies with similar names may be mistaken for each other due to 
misspellings or other errors. Moreover, FinCEN must have enough 
specific information about a reporting company to enable accurate 
searching of the database of beneficial ownership information. Given 
that companies may have similar names, addresses, and states of 
formation or registration, FinCEN believes that having a unique 
identification number for each reporting company is critical to 
enabling the unique identification of a reporting company and 
effectively searching the database to identify the beneficial ownership 
information reported for a particular company. The proposed rules would 
thus require the submission of additional information beyond each 
company's name.
    Specifically, the reporting company would be required to submit a 
TIN (including an Employer Identification Number (EIN)), or where a 
reporting company has not yet been issued a TIN, a Dun & Bradstreet 
Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number or a Legal Entity 
Identifier (LEI). A reporting company must furnish a TIN on all tax 
returns, statements, and other tax related documents filed with the 
IRS. As a result, FinCEN believes that there will be limited burdens 
for a reporting company with a tax filing obligation in the United 
States to provide its TIN. However, FinCEN recognizes that an entity 
may not be able to provide a TIN, such as in the case of a newly formed 
entity that does not yet have a TIN when it submits a report to FinCEN 
at the time of formation or registration. Accordingly, in FinCEN's 
proposal, a reporting company may provide a DUNS \101\ or LEI \102\ if 
it does not yet have a TIN. The DUNS and LEI numbers are commonly used 
in the United States and globally to distinguish entities from one 
another and to create unique identifying codes to facilitate financial 
and other transactions. Over 1.8 million LEIs have been created 
globally and the LEI is being adopted as a global standard in business 
transactions. More than 240,000 entities in the United States use LEIs 
to identify and distinguish themselves.\103\ Pursuant to 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(5)(ii)(B), if a reporting company has applied for and 
received a FinCEN identifier, it may submit the FinCEN identifier in 
lieu of a TIN, DUNS, or LEI number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See Dun & Bradstreet, What is a D-U-N-S Number?, available 
at https://www.dnb.com/duns-number.html.
    \102\ See LEI Worldwide, What is a Legal Entity Identifier?, 
available at https://www.lei-worldwide.com/what-is-a-legal-entity-identifier.html.
    \103\ See Global LEI Foundation, LEI Statistics--Global LEI 
Index--LEI Data--GLEIF, available at https://www.gleif.org/en/lei-data/global-lei-index/lei-statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN expects that there should be minimal burden on a reporting 
company to obtain and report basic identifying information about itself 
in light of the need to have a TIN to pay taxes in the United States 
and the need for other identifying numbers and information to conform 
to other business requirements. Additionally, the information that 
FinCEN is proposing to collect does not extend beyond basic identifying 
information that should be readily available to the reporting company. 
However, FinCEN welcomes comments on the anticipated burden of this 
reporting requirement, particularly for newly formed entities that may 
not have a unique identifying number shortly after formation, and 
potential alternatives that would allow for the unique identification 
of the reporting company and effective searching of the beneficial 
ownership database.
    FinCEN recognizes the perspective of the many commenters who 
encouraged FinCEN to require a reporting company to report a 
significant amount of additional information about itself and about 
intermediate legal entity owners through which ultimate natural person 
beneficial owners of the reporting company own their interests. FinCEN 
believes that requiring detailed reporting of intermediate legal entity 
owners and other information about reporting companies could 
substantially enhance the transparency of companies' ownership 
structures and make the collected data more useful for law enforcement, 
financial institutions, and other authorized users. However, the 
commenters who urged collection of this information did not identify 
the statutory authority for the collection of such information from 
reporting companies. FinCEN welcomes further comments on the authority 
for and practical effect of collecting such additional information 
under the CTA.
    FinCEN further recognizes certain commenters have raised concerns 
that a reporting company may list the address of a formation agent or 
other third party as its ``business street address,'' rather than its 
principal place of business or the business entity's actual physical 
location. FinCEN believes that requirement to submit a reporting 
company's business street address precludes the reporting of the 
address of the reporting company's formation agent or other third party 
representatives, but welcomes comments on whether the term ``business 
street address'' is sufficiently clear or whether further clarification 
is needed to avoid the reporting of addresses of formation agents and 
other third parties as a reporting company's ``business street 
address.''
iii. Special Rules
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3) sets forth special reporting rules 
for ownership interests held by exempt entities, minor children, 
foreign pooled investment vehicles, and deceased company applicants. 
Specifically, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(i) sets forth a special 
rule for reporting companies with ownership interests held by exempt 
entities, consistent with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(B). 
As set forth in the special rule, if an exempt entity under 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2) has, or will have, a direct or indirect ownership 
interest in a reporting company, and an individual is a beneficial 
owner of the reporting company by virtue of such ownership interest, 
the report shall include the name of the exempt entity rather than the 
information required under paragraph (b)(1) with respect to such 
beneficial owner. This rule is intended to avoid a situation in which 
an entity that is exempt from the beneficial ownership reporting 
requirement is nonetheless required to disclose its beneficial owners 
as a result of its ownership of a reporting company.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(ii) provides a special rule for 
reporting the information of a parent or guardian in lieu of 
information about a minor child. Specifically, proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(3)(ii) provides that if a reporting company reports the 
information required under paragraph (b)(1) with respect to a parent or 
legal guardian of a minor child consistent with the exception outlined 
at 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(i), then the report shall indicate that such 
information relates to the parent or legal guardian. Without this 
information, stakeholders would not know that the parent or legal 
guardian is not the actual beneficial owner.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(iii) explains the special rule for 
foreign pooled investment vehicles that the CTA established in 31 
U.S.C.

[[Page 69933]]

5336(b)(2)(C). Under proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(iii), a foreign 
legal entity that is formed under the laws of a foreign country, and 
that would be a reporting company but for the pooled investment vehicle 
exemption in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xviii), must report to FinCEN the 
BOI of the individual who exercises substantial control over the legal 
entity.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(iv) sets forth a special reporting 
rule for situations where a reporting company is created before the 
effective date of the regulations and the company applicant has died 
before the reporting obligation is effective. The proposed rule 
elaborates at 31 CFR 1010.380(e) that a company applicant is the 
individual who files, including by directing or controlling the filing, 
the document that created the reporting company. This may present 
substantial challenges for a longstanding company (e.g., one that was 
formed a century ago). In specifying the information to be reported 
about beneficial owners and applicants, the CTA appears to presume that 
such individuals are not deceased, as it requires a current address and 
a number from a nonexpired identification document.\104\ Thus, for 
deceased individuals, Congress does not appear to have spoken directly 
to the information required to be reported to identify such 
individuals, and FinCEN must ``prescribe procedures and standards 
governing any report'' for such individuals.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A).
    \105\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To minimize burdens in this unique situation, proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(3)(iv) would allow a reporting company formed or registered 
before the effective date of the regulations, and whose company 
applicant died before the reporting company had an obligation to obtain 
identifying information from a company applicant, to report that fact 
along with whatever identifying information the reporting company 
actually knows about the company applicant. FinCEN believes that this 
tailored approach balances stakeholders' need for information on 
company applicants with the challenges older reporting companies may 
face. FinCEN welcomes comments on this special rule or any other 
special rules that may be required to alleviate the burden of company 
applicant reporting, and would encourage commenters to include an 
explanation of why they believe such further proposed special rules are 
consistent with the CTA.
    FinCEN does not propose to apply the same rule to deceased 
beneficial owners because, as the statute makes clear and as the 
proposed rule elaborates at proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d), the 
requirement to report beneficial owners pertains to those who are the 
current beneficial owners of the reporting company. While a company 
applicant will remain the same for all time after the entity is 
created, an individual will cease to be a beneficial owner upon death. 
As a result, no beneficial owners will be deceased at the time a 
company must report them. A reporting company thus will not face the 
same burdens in reporting information about current beneficial owners 
as it may face in reporting information about deceased company 
applicants.
iv. FinCEN Identifier; Other Matters
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(4) would specify the contents of 
corrected and updated reports, making clear that such reports filed in 
the time and manner specified in 31 CFR 1010.380(a) must contain the 
corrected or updated information, and in the case of newly exempt 
entities, shall contain a notification that the exempt entity is no 
longer a reporting company. These updated and corrected reports are 
explained in 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2) and (3).
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(5) sets forth rules that relate to 
obtaining and using a FinCEN identifier, reflecting requirements that 
are found in several different parts of 31 U.S.C. 5336. Consistent with 
31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(A), an individual may obtain a FinCEN identifier 
by providing FinCEN with the information that the individual would 
otherwise have to provide to a reporting company if the individual were 
a beneficial owner or applicant of the reporting company; an entity can 
obtain a FinCEN identifier from FinCEN when it submits a filing as a 
reporting company or any time thereafter.\106\ This means that an 
individual or legal entity must still disclose information to FinCEN, 
but once an individual or legal entity has a FinCEN identifier, the 
individual or legal entity can provide the identifier to a reporting 
company in lieu of the personal details required under paragraph 
(b)(1). For instance, an individual can provide his or her FinCEN 
identifier to the reporting company, and the reporting company can 
provide the FinCEN identifier to FinCEN in lieu of any information the 
reporting company would otherwise have to report about the individual 
under paragraph (b)(1). Similarly, an entity can provide the FinCEN 
identifier to the reporting company, and the reporting company can 
provide the FinCEN identifier to FinCEN in lieu of any information the 
reporting company would otherwise have to report about that entity's 
beneficial owners if they qualified as beneficial owners of the 
reporting company through their interests in the entity. In such 
circumstances, the underlying information associated with a FinCEN 
identifier would still be available to FinCEN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The statute provides that only entities that report their 
beneficial ownership information to FinCEN are eligible to receive 
FinCEN identifiers. 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Beneficial Owners

    The CTA defines a beneficial owner, with respect to a reporting 
company, as ``any individual who, directly or indirectly, through any 
contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise--(i) 
exercises substantial control over the entity; or (ii) owns or controls 
not less than 25% of the ownership interests of the entity.'' \107\ The 
statute, however, does not define ``substantial control'' or 
``ownership interests.'' FinCEN proposes to clarify these terms in the 
rule so that a reporting company has sufficient guidance to identify 
and report its beneficial owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the CTA, the proposed rule would require a 
reporting company to identify any individual who satisfies either of 
these two components. Based on the breadth of the substantial control 
component, FinCEN expects that a reporting company would identify at 
least one beneficial owner under that component regardless of whether 
(1) any individual satisfies the ownership component, or (2) exclusions 
to the definition of beneficial owner apply. FinCEN is interested in 
comments addressing whether that expectation is reasonable, under what 
circumstances a reporting company may not have at least one reportable 
beneficial owner, and how to address such circumstances, if they exist.
i. Substantial Control
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1) sets forth three specific indicators 
of substantial control: (1) Service as a senior officer of a reporting 
company; (2) authority over the appointment or removal of any senior 
officer or dominant majority of the board of directors (or similar 
body) of a reporting company; and (3) direction, determination, or 
decision of, or substantial influence over, important

[[Page 69934]]

matters of a reporting company. The regulation also includes a catch-
all provision to make clear that substantial control can take 
additional forms not specifically listed. Each of these indicators 
supports the basic goal of requiring a reporting company to identify 
the individuals who stand behind the reporting company and direct its 
actions. The first indicator identifies the individuals with nominal or 
de jure authority, the second and third indicators identify the 
individuals with functional or de facto authority, and the catch-all 
provision recognizes that control exercised in novel and unorthodox 
ways can still be substantial. This last approach is consistent with 
the common law tradition and the standards that FinCEN examined, as 
well as the broader objective of preventing individuals from evading 
identification as beneficial owners by hiding behind formalisms such as 
job descriptions, job titles, and nominal lack of authority.
    In developing the proposed definition of substantial control, 
FinCEN looked to the common law of agency and corporate law and the 
usage of that term in other federal statutes, which generally 
incorporate similar agency-law concepts. FinCEN considered these 
statutes in framing functional tests for assessing whether an 
individual exercises substantial control over an entity. FinCEN also 
considered the FATF Recommendations, established beneficial-owner 
reporting standards such as that used with the United Kingdom's (UK's) 
People with Significant Control (or PSC) Register, U.S. Federal tax 
law, and the statutory law and administrative practice informing the 
activity of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
(CFIUS). Drawing in part on these standards, and supported by many 
commenters' suggestions that FinCEN do so, proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(1)(iii) provides specific examples of indicators of 
substantial control. This non-exhaustive list of examples is intended 
to clarify the types of matters FinCEN considers relevant to an 
analysis of whether an individual is ``direct[ing], determin[ing], or 
deci[ding] . . . important matters affecting [a] reporting company'' 
and thus exercising substantial control. Reporting companies should be 
guided by the specific examples in the proposed rule, but they should 
also consider how individuals could exercise substantial control in 
other ways.
    FinCEN acknowledges the concerns raised by commenters that too 
broad a definition of substantial control could engender confusion. One 
commenter pointed out that property managers make decisions that 
influence the operations of the property but are hired by and report to 
the owners of the property; the commenter did not think such 
individuals should necessarily be considered beneficial owners on these 
facts alone, and FinCEN agrees. The ordinary execution of day-to-day 
managerial decisions with respect to one part of a reporting company's 
assets or employees typically should not, in isolation, cause the 
decision-maker to be considered in substantial control of a reporting 
company, unless that person satisfies another element of the 
``substantial control'' criteria.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2) provides a general reminder that an 
individual can exercise substantial control directly or indirectly. 
This incorporates statutory language from the CTA that applies to all 
beneficial ownership determinations and includes additional language 
applying the concept found in the CTA to the specific instances of 
substantial control found in proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1).
    FinCEN carefully considered the burden that this approach to 
defining substantial control might impose on reporting companies, small 
businesses in particular. Based on the comments to the ANPRM, FinCEN 
recognizes that the CTA may require certain entities to disclose BOI on 
more and different individuals than they are accustomed to under the 
control prong of the current CDD Rule. FinCEN also recognizes that 
reporting companies will likely incur some additional costs in 
complying with this obligation. That said, FinCEN expects the amount of 
additional time and effort required to comply with the proposed rule to 
be minimal. Specifically, under the proposed rule, a reporting company 
would not need to spend significant time assessing which of its 
beneficial owners would be the most appropriate to report as being in 
substantial control. Rather, entities would simply report all persons 
in substantial control as beneficial owners, with no need to 
distinguish among them. Additionally, FinCEN believes that entities are 
already aware of their own ownership structures, regardless of 
complexity, and should be able to readily identify their beneficial 
owners. Therefore, FinCEN expects that compliance should not be 
particularly burdensome for most businesses. While FinCEN's approach 
could be viewed to raise concerns about the disclosure of personal 
information about a broader range of individuals, the privacy impact of 
reporting BOI to FinCEN is relatively light, because, unlike beneficial 
ownership registries in many other countries, FinCEN's database will 
not be public and will be subject to stringent access protocols.
    FinCEN recognizes that its proposed definition of substantial 
control diverges from the approach that a number of commenters to the 
ANPRM stated they would prefer, i.e., the approach laid out in the 
current CDD Rule. Under the ``control prong'' of the current CDD Rule, 
new legal entity customers of a financial institution must provide BOI 
for the one individual who exercises a ``significant degree of 
control'' over the entity. FinCEN considered whether the proposed rule 
should adopt a comparable approach. As some ANPRM commenters argued, 
limiting the number of persons identified under the substantial control 
component to one could minimize burden to reporting companies and help 
clarify when reporting companies had complied with the CTA's reporting 
requirements.
    However, the CTA does not require the identification of only one 
person in substantial control.\108\ The CTA also mandates that FinCEN 
rescind and revise portions of the CDD Rule, including the paragraph on 
beneficial owners, to bring the pre-CTA CDD Rule into conformity with 
the CTA.\109\ FinCEN therefore need not adopt the framework established 
by the current CDD Rule, and incorporating the CDD Rule's numerical 
limitation would appear inconsistent with the CTA's objective of 
establishing a comprehensive BOI database for all beneficial owners of 
reporting companies. FinCEN believes that limiting reporting of 
individuals in substantial control to one person as in the CDD Rule--or 
indeed to impose any other numerical limit--would artificially limit 
the reporting of beneficial owners who may exercise substantial control 
over an entity, and could become a means of evasion. Requiring 
reporting companies to identify all individuals who exercise

[[Page 69935]]

substantial control would provide law enforcement and others a much 
more complete picture of who makes important decisions at a reporting 
company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ The proposed approach would also be consistent with the 
text of the CTA, which--unlike the CDD Rule that preceded it--does 
not expressly limit the definition of beneficial owner to ``a single 
individual.'' Compare 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A) (``The term beneficial 
owner means, with respect to an entity, an individual who . . . 
exercises substantial control over the entity.'') with 31 CFR 
1010.230(d)(2) (defining ``beneficial owner'' as ``a single 
individual with significant responsibility to control, manage or 
direct a legal entity'' (emphasis added)). Under well-established 
principles of agency law, moreover, more than one individual can 
exercise substantial control over a single agent. See, e.g., 
Restatement (Third) of Agency Sec. 3.14, Agents with Multiple 
Principals; id. Sec. 3.16, Agents for Coprincipals (``Two or more 
persons may as coprincipals appoint an agent to act for them in the 
same transaction or matter.'').
    \109\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN also considered but rejected a per se rule that would have 
deemed all officers of a reporting company to be in ``substantial 
control'' of the entity, and therefore, beneficial owners. While a per 
se rule is clear and easy to administer, FinCEN ultimately concluded 
that the CTA's consistent focus on individuals that are in actual 
substantial control of a reporting company argued against creating a 
definition of ``substantial control'' that relies on titles alone. 
Thus, while FinCEN has retained a per se element in its proposed 
definition of substantial control--requiring the reporting of any 
``senior officer'' as a person in substantial control--this is only a 
part of the definition in proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(1). Despite 
comments from some that FinCEN should adopt a definition of substantial 
control drawn from another BOI disclosure regime, such as the UK's PSC 
Register, FinCEN believes that its proposed definition of ``substantial 
control,'' which, as discussed above, is based on established legal 
principles and usages of this term in other contexts, provides 
specificity to the regulated community while being flexible enough to 
account for unique ways in which individuals can exercise substantial 
control over an entity.
    FinCEN seeks comments on the overall proposed approach to 
substantial control as well as on the specific indicators and examples, 
including whether they are clear and useful. FinCEN welcomes additional 
suggestions for possible indicators and specific language in this 
regard.
ii. Ownership or Control of Ownership Interests
    The other component of the definition of beneficial owner concerns 
individuals who own or control 25 percent of a reporting company's 
ownership interests. The CTA defines a beneficial owner to include ``an 
individual who . . . owns or control not less than 25 percent of the 
ownership interests of the entity.'' \110\ Proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(d)(3)(i) provides that ``ownership interests,'' for the 
purposes of this rule, would include both equity in the reporting 
company and other types of interests, such as capital or profit 
interests (including partnership interests) or convertible instruments, 
warrants or rights, or other options or privileges to acquire equity, 
capital, or other interests in a reporting company. Debt instruments 
are included if they enable the holder to exercise the same rights as 
one of the specified equity or other interests, including the ability 
to convert the instrument into one of the specified equity or other 
interests. This is similar to the U.S. Securities and Exchange 
Commission's definition of ``equity security'' in 17 CFR 230.405.\111\ 
FinCEN proposes to adopt this understanding as a way of ensuring that 
the underlying reality of ownership, not the form it takes, drives the 
identification of beneficial owners. The approach also thwarts the use 
of complex ownership structures and ownership vehicles other than 
direct equity ownership to obscure a reporting company's real owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(A)(ii).
    \111\ Securities Act Rule 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii) identifies ways in which an 
individual may ``own or control'' interests. It restates statutory 
language that an individual may own or control an ownership interest 
directly or indirectly. It also gives a non-exhaustive list of examples 
to further emphasize that an individual can own or control ownership 
interests through a variety of means. FinCEN's proposed approach 
requires reporting companies to consider all facts and circumstances 
when making determinations about who owns or controls ownership 
interests. FinCEN believes that the specific examples will illustrate 
what FinCEN believes to be relevant to an ownership-interests analysis. 
For example, with proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii)(A) (joint 
ownership), FinCEN's objective is to highlight that an individual may 
reach the 25 percent threshold by jointly owning or controlling with 
one or more other persons an undivided ownership interest in a 
reporting company.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(ii)(C) specifies that an individual 
may directly or indirectly own or control an ownership interest in a 
reporting company through a trust or similar arrangement. The proposed 
language aims to make clear that an individual may own or control 
ownership interests by way of the individual's position as a grantor or 
settlor, a beneficiary, a trustee, or another individual with authority 
to dispose of trust assets. In relation to trust beneficiaries in 
particular, FinCEN believes that it is appropriate to consider an 
individual as owning or controlling ownership interests held in trust 
if the individual is the sole permissible recipient of both income and 
principal from the trust, or has the right to demand a distribution of, 
or withdraw substantially all of the assets from, the trust. Other 
individuals with authority to dispose of trust assets, such as 
trustees, will also be considered as controlling the ownership 
interests held in trust, as will grantors or settlors that have 
retained the right to revoke the trust, or to otherwise withdraw the 
assets of the trust. FinCEN believes that these circumstances comport 
with the general understanding of ownership and control in the context 
of trusts and furthers the CTA's objective of identifying true 
beneficial owners regardless of formalities that may vary across 
different jurisdictions. However, FinCEN acknowledges that these 
concepts do not map easily onto every trust or similar arrangement. 
Accordingly, FinCEN is seeking comment on its general approach to the 
attribution of ownership interests held in trust to certain 
individuals, as well as the particular circumstances in which 
individuals may be considered to own or control ownerships interests 
held in trust. More broadly, FinCEN seeks comments on whether these and 
the other proposed examples of how one might own or control ownership 
interests are clear and useful, and which, if any, require elaboration.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(3)(iii) concludes the ownership 
interest section with general guidance on determining whether an 
individual owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership interests of a 
reporting company. An individual's ownership interests of the reporting 
company shall include all ownership interests of any class or type, and 
the percentage of such ownership interests that an individual owns or 
controls shall be determined by aggregating all of the individual's 
ownership interests in comparison to the undiluted ownership interests 
of the company. FinCEN believes this approach would further the CTA's 
objective of identifying true beneficial owners by accounting for 
complex ownership or investment structures. FinCEN seeks comments on 
this approach to the 25 percent calculation, including any issues that 
FinCEN should consider in relation to reporting companies with more 
complex ownership structures.
    FinCEN considered alternative approaches to identifying beneficial 
owners according to their ownership interests, in particular the 
approach laid out in the ownership prong of the CDD Rule. In that 
approach, only ``equity interests'' are relevant, joint ownership is 
not explicitly addressed, and assets in trust are deemed to be owned by 
their

[[Page 69936]]

trustees.\112\ The ownership prong of the CDD Rule is well known, 
easily understood, and easy to comply with. Many commenters urged 
FinCEN to adopt the CDD Rule approach to trusts. However, FinCEN has 
declined to follow the CDD Rule approach for a combination of reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See 31 CFR 1010.230(d)(3) (CDD Rule provision stating that 
``[i]f a trust owns directly or indirectly, through any contract, 
arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, 25 percent or 
more of the equity interests of a legal entity customer, the 
beneficial owner for purposes of [the definition of beneficial 
owner] shall mean the trustee.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, as discussed above, the CTA does not require following the 
CDD Rule by default. The same statutory interpretation arguments that 
led FinCEN to believe that the CDD Rule is not an appropriate standard 
in connection with substantial control apply equally to the subject of 
ownership interests.
    Second, the CDD Rule does not provide transparency with respect to 
complex ownership structures, extensive use of trusts, voting 
arrangements among owners, golden shares entitling their owners to 
voting rights disproportionate to their equity stake, and other 
mechanisms that can obscure the connection between an individual owner 
and a reporting company. Therefore, it is not at all clear that the CDD 
Rule results in the identification of all individuals who should be 
identified as 25 percent owners. Instead, the CDD Rule standard could 
permit obfuscatory behavior. In connection with trusts, for example, 
FinCEN believes that requiring the reporting only of the trustee under 
the ownership interests component would promote the misuse of trusts to 
hide beneficial ownership interests and complicate the ability of 
reporting companies to comply with the CTA and the proposed rule. As 
with the definition of substantial control, FinCEN believes its 
proposed approach would provide law enforcement with a more accurate 
and complete picture of an entity's true ownership, regardless of 
formalities.
    Finally, FinCEN considered the burden this proposed approach would 
have on reporting companies. FinCEN is mindful of the effect of new 
regulations on small businesses, given their critical role in the U.S. 
economy and the special consideration that Congress and successive 
administrations have mandated that federal agencies should give to 
small business concerns. FinCEN expects that most reporting companies 
that are small businesses will have simple ownership structures with 
easily identifiable beneficial owners, thereby minimizing the potential 
burden on such entities. FinCEN's expectation is supported by a recent 
empirical analysis on the compliance burden that resulted from the 
creation of a beneficial ownership registry in the UK. In its post-
implementation review of the PSC Register, the UK Government found that 
only 13% of companies had three or more beneficial owners.\113\ It also 
found that the mean overall cost of compliance for small and micro 
businesses (defined as businesses with less than 50 employees) to file 
an initial report and provide required updates was [pound]265 
(approximately $358 at current exchange rates).\114\ Notably, the UK's 
beneficial owner database is public and the UK requires businesses to 
provide considerably more information about each beneficial owner. This 
suggests that the reporting burden of FinCEN's approach may be 
materially less than the burden of compliance borne by small businesses 
and other reporting companies in the UK since the establishment of the 
PSC Register. FinCEN seeks comments on these considerations, 
particularly regarding its assessment of the effect on small businesses 
based on the assessment of the UK's implementation of its register. 
FinCEN further welcomes specific data on this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy & 
Industrial Strategy, Review of the Implementation of the PSC 
Register, (March 2019), p. 4, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/822823/review-implementation-psc-register.pdf.
    \114\ Id., Table 3.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Entities for which relative burden may be higher are likely very 
small entities with complex structures. As noted above, FinCEN believes 
that most reporting companies will not have complex ownership 
structures, and that the few that do previously chose their structures 
recognizing that costs associated with legal and tax advice and other 
filing and compliance obligations might be higher as a result. 
Moreover, in FinCEN's experience administering the BSA and other AML 
efforts, small-but-complex entities often are the highest risk for 
money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial 
activity. Indeed, both the CTA's statutory text and legislative history 
indicate that Congress was concerned with ensuring effective BOI 
reporting for these entities. Thus, in FinCEN's experience, such a 
reporting burden is justified because these are the entities most at 
risk for abuse of the corporate form and, therefore, an additional 
compliance burden is necessary to make the BOI database ``highly useful 
to law enforcement'' under the statute.
iii. Exceptions to Definition of Beneficial Owner
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4) describes five exceptions to the 
definition of beneficial owners that are included in the CTA. These 
exceptions relate to minor children, nominees or other intermediaries, 
employees, inheritors, and creditors. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4) 
mirrors the statutory text with additional clarification to ensure that 
reporting companies identify real parties in interest, not only the 
nominal beneficial owners.
a. Minor Children
    In the case of minor children, consistent with the statute, 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(i) states that the term beneficial owner 
does not include a minor child, provided that the reporting company 
reports the required information for a parent or legal guardian of the 
minor child.\115\ Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3)(ii) provides 
additional clarification regarding the manner in which a reporting 
company would need to provide information of a parent or legal 
guardian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Nominees
    With respect to the exception for an individual acting as a 
nominee, intermediary, custodian, or agent on behalf of another 
individual, FinCEN notes that the statute affirms that reporting 
companies must report real parties in interest who exercise control 
indirectly.\116\ In implementing this statutory exception, FinCEN 
emphasizes the obligation of a reporting company to report identifying 
information of the individual on whose behalf an apparent beneficial 
owner is acting, not the apparent beneficial owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Employees
    The CTA further exempts from the definition of a beneficial owner 
an employee of a reporting company, ``acting solely as an employee,'' 
whose ``control over or economic benefits from'' a reporting company 
are derived solely from the employment status of the person. Proposed 
31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(iii) adopts the statutory language, with two 
clarifications. First, the word ``substantial'' is added to modify 
``control'' to clarify that the control referenced in the exception is 
the same type of ``substantial control'' over the reporting company 
referenced

[[Page 69937]]

in the definition of beneficial owner and defined in the regulations. 
Second, the proposed rule clarifies that a person acting as a senior 
officer of a reporting company could not avail himself or herself of 
the exception. Under the CTA, only employees who are ``acting solely as 
an employee'' may be exempt. The statute does not, however, specify 
what it means to act ``solely as an employee,'' and this phrase may be 
viewed as ambiguous. FinCEN proposes to address this ambiguity by 
distinguishing between employees and senior officers and by clarifying 
that a person acting as a senior officer of an entity is not a person 
acting ``solely as an employee.'' In the common law of agency and 
corporate law, senior officers have long been distinguished from 
employees, with officers often regarded as principals and employees 
regarded as agents.\117\ Senior officers may be considered employees in 
some contexts, such as for certain tax purposes where the distinction 
between officers and employees may be less relevant. But in contexts 
focused more on an individual's ownership or control of an entity, such 
as disclosure requirements or imputation of conduct for various 
purposes, senior officers are often treated differently.\118\ In the 
context of the CTA's exceptions from the definition of beneficial 
owner, FinCEN believes that distinguishing employees from senior 
officers would appropriately ensure that individuals whose functions 
enable them to exercise substantial control over an entity in many 
important ways are reported as beneficial owners.\119\ Exempting senior 
officers from the definition of beneficial owner would seem to 
frustrate the CTA's objective of identifying individuals who exercise 
substantial control over an entity, and who may thereby be in a 
position to use the entity for illicit purposes. FinCEN welcomes 
comments on the exclusion of senior officers from this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See, e.g., Goldman v. Shahmoon, 208 A.2d 492, 494 (D. Ch. 
1965) (``It is clear that the terms officers and agents are by no 
means interchangeable. Officers as such are the corporation. An 
agent is an employee . . . .''); Rosenblum v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
57 A.2d 690, 691 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1948) (distinguishing ``regular 
employees'' and ``mere agents'' from ``executive officers'').
    \118\ See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 308.602 (debarment of accounting 
firms); 15 U.S.C. 78p (requiring disclosures from directors, 
officers, and principal stakeholders); 15 U.S.C. 77aa (disclosure of 
directors and officers in securities issuer's registration 
statement); 22 CFR 126.7 (revocation of export licenses on the basis 
of senior officer conduct).
    \119\ In corporate and agency-law contexts, a formal or 
functional position as a senior officer can be a key indicator of an 
individual's substantial control over an entity. See United States 
ex rel. Vavra v. Kellong Brown & Root, Inc., 848 F.3d 366, 374 (5th 
Cir. 2017); see also, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines, 
U.S.S.G. sec. 8A1.2 cmt. 3(B) (`` 'High-level personnel of the 
organization, means individuals who have substantial control over 
the organization or who have a substantial role in the making of 
policy within the organization. The term includes: A director; an 
executive officer; an individual in charge of a major business or 
functional unit of the organization, such as sales, administration, 
or finance; and an individual with a substantial ownership 
interest.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Inheritance
    The inheritor exception restates statutory text with one added 
clarification. The CTA's definition of beneficial owner excludes ``an 
individual whose only interest . . . is through a right of 
inheritance.'' \120\ Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(iv) clarifies that 
this exception refers to a ``future'' interest associated with a right 
of inheritance, not a present interest that a person may acquire as a 
result of exercising such a right. In proposing this addition, FinCEN 
seeks to emphasize that once an individual has inherited an ownership 
interest in an entity, that individual owns it. Individuals who may in 
the future come to own ownership interests in an entity through a right 
of inheritance do not have ownership until the inheritance occurs. But 
once an ownership interest is inherited and comes to be owned by an 
individual, that individual has the same relationship to an entity as 
any other individual who acquires an ownership interest through another 
means. FinCEN thus believes this clarification is necessary to avoid 
exempting individuals on the basis of how ownership interests are 
acquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Creditors
    Finally, the CTA's definition of beneficial owner excludes a 
creditor of a reporting company unless the creditor exercises 
substantial control over the entity or owns or controls 25 percent of 
the entity's ownership interests.\121\ Based on FinCEN's understanding 
that the overarching intent of the CTA is to identify real parties in 
interest, FinCEN interprets this exception to mean that the mere fact 
that an individual is a creditor cannot make that individual a 
beneficial owner of the reporting company: What is relevant is whether 
the individual exercises substantial control of the reporting company 
or owns or controls 25 percent of the reporting company's ownership 
interests. However, the CTA does not define the term ``creditor.'' 
Drawing from U.S. tax law, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(v) clarifies 
that an exempt creditor is an individual who meets the definition of 
beneficial owner in proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d) solely through rights 
or interests in the reporting company for the payment of a 
predetermined sum of money, such as a debt and the payment of interest 
on such debt. The proposed rules clarify that any capital interest in 
the reporting company, or any right or interest in the value of the 
reporting company or its profits, would not be considered rights or 
interests for payment of a predetermined sum, regardless of whether 
they take the form of a debt instrument. Accordingly, if an individual 
has a right or ability to convert the right to payment of a 
predetermined sum to any form of ownership interest in the company, 
that would prevent that individual from claiming the creditor 
exception. FinCEN believes this approach is necessary to prevent 
individuals from obscuring their ownership of a company by structuring 
their ownership interests in the form of debt, when in substance they 
hold an interest with characteristics of equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(3)(B)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter noted that it is not uncommon for creditors to have 
so-called ``equity kickers'' allowing some form of sharing in cash flow 
or capital gains in addition to fixed interest. FinCEN believes such 
arrangements would not be within the proposed creditor exemption 
because the payments would not be for a predetermined sum. Therefore, 
it would be considered an ownership interest that could aggregate to a 
reportable ownership interest. FinCEN welcomes further comments on 
whether there are specific creditor or security interests that involve 
equity-like attributes that should be considered as within the creditor 
exemption and how such exemptions could be integrated into the proposed 
rule, including an explanation of how such interests would not affect 
the proposed rule's ability to generate a highly useful database. 
FinCEN also welcomes comments on whether the proposed rules 
implementing these statutory exceptions are sufficiently clear, and 
which, if any, require further clarification.

C. Company Applicant

    A reporting company would be required to report identifying 
information about a company applicant under proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(a)(1). Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(e) defines a company applicant 
as any individual who files a document that creates a domestic 
reporting company or who first registers a foreign reporting

[[Page 69938]]

company with a secretary of state or similar office in the United 
States.
    The proposed definition of a company applicant would also include 
any individual who directs or controls the filing of such a document by 
another person. This additional requirement is designed to ensure that 
the reporting company provides information on individuals that are 
responsible for the decision to form a reporting company given that, in 
many cases, the company applicant may be an employee of a business 
formation service or law firm, or an associate, agent, or family member 
who is filing the document on behalf of another individual. In such a 
case, the individual directing or controlling the formation of a legal 
entity should not be able to remain anonymous simply by directing 
another individual to file the requisite paperwork, and must therefore 
disclose his or her identity to FinCEN along with the individual that 
made the filing. FinCEN believes that this additional information about 
the person directing or controlling the formation or registration of 
the reporting company will be highly useful to law enforcement, which 
may be able to draw connections between and among seemingly unrelated 
reporting companies, beneficial owners, and company applicants based on 
this additional information. In addition, FinCEN believes that it will 
be better positioned to investigate the submission of inaccurate BOI if 
it is able to identify both the individual who submitted the report and 
the person who directed or controlled that activity. It may also give a 
company applicant executing the filing an incentive to reasonably 
satisfy himself or herself that the BOI being submitted to FinCEN at 
the direction of another is accurate because they could also be held 
accountable, thereby improving data quality. FinCEN believes that the 
burden of this reporting requirement is minimal because the identity of 
any individual that meets the definition of ``company applicant''--both 
the person submitting the report and the person directing it--should be 
readily available to reporting companies. FinCEN welcomes comments on 
this proposal.

D. Reporting Company

    The CTA defines a reporting company as ``a corporation, limited 
liability company, or other similar entity'' that is either (1) 
``created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or a 
similar office under the law of a State or Indian Tribe;'' or (2) 
``formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do 
business in the United States by the filing of a document with a 
secretary of state or a similar office under the laws of a State or 
Indian Tribe.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(A)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate application of the statutory definition of reporting 
company, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1) defines two new terms: 
``Domestic reporting company'' and ``foreign reporting company.''
i. Domestic Reporting Company
    Consistent with the CTA's statutory language, FinCEN proposes to 
define a domestic reporting company to include: (1) A corporation; (2) 
a limited liability company; or (3) other entity that is created by the 
filing of a document with a secretary of state or a similar office 
under the law of a state or Indian Tribe.\123\ Because corporate 
formation is governed by state or Tribal law, and because the CTA does 
not provide independent definitions of the terms ``corporation'' and 
``limited liability company,'' FinCEN intends to interpret these terms 
by reference to the governing law of the domestic jurisdiction in which 
a reporting company that is a corporation or limited liability company 
is formed. For clarity and ease of administration, the proposed rule 
defines ``reporting company'' to include all domestic corporations and 
limited liability companies based on FinCEN's understanding that all 
corporations and limited liability companies are created by the filing 
of a document with a secretary of state or a similar office under the 
law of a state or Indian Tribe. FinCEN, however, invites comment on 
whether this understanding is accurate.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(A)(i)-(ii).
    \124\ A 2016 World Bank guide to beneficial ownership 
information in the United States notes that the actual mechanics of 
creating a corporation or limited liability company may vary 
slightly from state to state, but are generally very similar. 
Specifically, the guide notes that ``[f]or corporations, every state 
requires the filing of a corporate governance document (called the 
`articles of incorporation,' `certificate of incorporation,' or 
`charter') with the state filing office, together with the payment 
of a filing fee.'' It further states that ``[f]or limited liability 
companies. . . [e]very state requires the filing of an organization 
document (generally called a `certificate of organization,' 
`certificate of formation,' or `articles of organization') which 
constitutes proof of its organization, form, and existence.'' World 
Bank G-20 Anti-Corruption Working Group, Guide to Beneficial 
Ownership Information: Legal Entities and Legal Arrangements (United 
States) (2016), p. 3, available at https://star.worldbank.org/resources/beneficial-ownership-guide-united-states-america-2016. 
(accessed on November 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule does not separately define the statutory clause 
``other similar entity,'' but rather reflects FinCEN's interpretation 
of ``other similar entity'' as referring to any entity that is created 
by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar 
office, the only common characteristic the statute identifies. FinCEN 
considered alternative approaches when determining how to interpret 
``similar entity,'' but those alternatives do not appear to accord with 
Congress's objective of enabling law enforcement and others to counter 
illicit activity conducted through such entities, or are otherwise 
unworkable.\125\ For example, FinCEN considered defining ``similar 
entity'' narrowly to include entities that limit their owners' personal 
liability under state or Indian Tribe law, but it is not clear how this 
limitation would align with the purpose of the statute because legal 
entities can be used by malign actors to further or hide illicit 
activity regardless of whether they enjoy limited liability. 
Alternatively, ``similar entity'' might be defined somewhat more 
broadly to include entities that are legally distinct from their 
natural person owners, but this definition would depend on varying 
state law and could be difficult to apply. Moreover, any approach that 
unduly narrows the scope of the reporting company definition could 
exclude entities that malign actors can use to obscure their true 
ownership or control structures, thereby limiting the usefulness of the 
reported information for law enforcement, tax authorities, and other 
stakeholders. In passing the CTA, Congress was concerned with entities 
that can be created without needing to report who their beneficial 
owners are.\126\ And Congress was aware that malign actors take 
advantage of these entities to conceal their involvement in illicit 
activity.\127\ As explained above, this creates a significant hurdle 
for investigators who are forced to use time-consuming and resource-
intensive tools to try to obtain this information, if it can be 
obtained at all. An unduly narrow interpretation of ``similar entity'' 
could therefore impede a key objective of the CTA. Thus, FinCEN 
proposes to focus on the act of filing to create the entity as the 
determinative factor in defining entities besides corporations and 
limited liability companies that are also reporting companies. FinCEN 
welcomes comments on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ CTA, Section 6402(5)(D).
    \126\ CTA, Section 6402(2).
    \127\ CTA, Section 6402(3)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, FinCEN believes the proposed definition of domestic 
reporting company would likely include limited liability partnerships, 
limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts (a/k/a 
statutory trusts or

[[Page 69939]]

Massachusetts trusts), and most limited partnerships, in addition to 
corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs), because such 
entities appear typically to be created by a filing with a secretary of 
state or similar office. FinCEN estimates that there are now 
approximately 30 million such entities in the United States, and that 
approximately three million such entities are created in the United 
States each year.\128\ FinCEN understands that state and Tribal laws 
may differ on whether certain other types of legal or business forms--
such as general partnerships, other types of trusts, and sole 
proprietorships--are created by a filing, and therefore does not 
propose to categorically include any particular legal forms other than 
corporations and limited liability companies within the scope of the 
definition. FinCEN invites commenters to provide information on state 
and Indian Tribe legal entity formation practices and requirements for 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See Section VI of this NPRM for more information on these 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Foreign Reporting Company
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)(ii) defines a foreign reporting 
company as any entity that is a corporation, limited liability company, 
or other entity that is formed under the law of a foreign country and 
that is registered to do business in the United States by the filing of 
a document with a secretary of state or equivalent office under the law 
of a state or Indian Tribe. Similar to the treatment of the phrase 
``corporation, limited liability company, or other similar entity'' for 
domestic reporting companies, FinCEN intends to interpret these terms 
by reference to the requirement to register to do business in the 
United States by the filing of a document in a state or Tribal 
jurisdiction. The proposed regulation otherwise tracks the statutory 
text except to clarify that registration to do business in any state or 
Tribal jurisdiction suffices as registration to do business in the 
United States.
    As with domestic reporting companies that are ``created by a 
filing,'' there may be questions about how the ``registered to do 
business'' standard applies to different entity types across state and 
Tribal jurisdictions. The phrase ``registered to do business'' may 
capture more entities than ``created by the filing of a document'' 
because typically a jurisdiction within the United States will require 
any legal entity formed under the law of any other jurisdiction--
including another jurisdiction within the United States--to register to 
do business as a ``foreign'' entity if it engages in certain types of 
activities.\129\ FinCEN welcomes comments on what activities will 
trigger foreign entity registration requirements in particular state or 
Tribal jurisdictions, whether compliance with those requirements 
constitutes ``registering to do business,'' and whether FinCEN should 
further clarify the ``registered to do business'' requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See, e.g., Cal. Corp. Code sec. 2107, Del. Code tit. 8, 
sec. 371, New York Consolidated Laws (N.Y.C.L.), Business and 
Corporations Code secs. 1301-1305, Mass. Gen. L. Ann. Ch. 156D, 
secs. 15.01-15.03, Va. Code tit. 13.1, secs. 757-759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Exemptions
    The CTA specifically excludes from the definition of ``reporting 
company'' twenty-three types of entities.\130\ The statute also 
authorizes the Secretary to exempt, by regulation, additional entities 
for which collecting BOI would neither serve the public interest nor be 
highly useful in national security, intelligence, law enforcement, or 
other similar efforts.\131\ Except for the proposed clarifications 
discussed below, as well as minor alterations to paragraph structure 
and the addition of short titles, FinCEN proposes to adopt verbatim the 
statutory language granting the twenty-three specified exemptions. Each 
proposed short title summarizes the applicable exemptions, which cover 
securities issuers, domestic governmental authorities, banks, domestic 
credit unions, depository institution holding companies, money 
transmitting businesses, brokers or dealers in securities, securities 
exchange or clearing agencies, other Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
entities,\132\ registered investment companies and advisers, venture 
capital fund advisers, insurance companies, state licensed insurance 
producers, Commodity Exchange Act registered entities,\133\ accounting 
firms, public utilities, financial market utilities, pooled investment 
vehicles, tax exempt entities, entities assisting tax exempt entities, 
large operating companies, subsidiaries of certain exempt entities, and 
inactive businesses. These categories of exempt entities either are 
already generally subject to substantial Federal or state regulation 
under which their beneficial ownership may be known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(i)-(xxiii).
    \131\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv).
    \132\ See 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \133\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While most of the reporting company exemptions are straightforward, 
several contain ambiguous language that FinCEN proposes to clarify in 
its regulations. FinCEN first proposes to define ``public utility'' 
\134\ via reference to the Internal Revenue Code definition of 
``regulated public utility'' at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(33)(A). Under this 
definition, a ``public utility'' would generally be a corporation that 
furnishes or sells electric energy, gas, water, or sewage disposal 
services, or transportation, at rates established or approved by a 
government body. Using this preexisting definition should promote 
predictability and continuity across Treasury and other federal 
regulations, which may reduce compliance burdens that would otherwise 
arise from definitional differences among regulatory regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xvi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxi) clarifies an exemption relating 
to what the proposed regulations refer to as ``large operating 
companies.'' An entity falls into this category, and therefore is not a 
reporting company, if it: (1) ``Employs more than 20 employees on a 
full-time basis in the United States''; (2) ``filed in the previous 
year Federal income tax returns in the United States demonstrating more 
than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales in the aggregate,'' 
including the receipts or sales of other entities owned by the entity 
and through which the entity operates; and (3) ``has an operating 
presence at a physical office within the United States.'' \135\ Under 
the proposed regulations, an entity with an ``operating presence at a 
physical office within the United States'' would be one for which the 
physical office is owned or leased by the entity, is not a residence, 
and is not shared space (beyond being shared with affiliated 
entities)--in short, a genuine working office of the entity. In the 
exemption, FinCEN also proposes to clarify what it means to employ 
someone on a full-time basis through reference to the Internal Revenue 
Service definition of ``full-time employee'' and related determination 
methods at 26 CFR 54.4980H-1(a)(21) and 54.4980H-3. These regulations 
generally count as a full-time employee anyone employed an average of 
at least 30 service hours per week or 130 service hours per month, with 
adaptations for non-hourly employees. As with the ``public utility'' 
definition, FinCEN is borrowing the IRS concept to promote regulatory 
consistency and because most large operating companies should already 
be familiar with it from compliance with the Affordable Care Act.\136\ 
Therefore, FinCEN believes its

[[Page 69940]]

proposed approach will help minimize compliance burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxi).
    \136\ See 26 U.S.C. 4980H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the $5,000,000 filing threshold, FinCEN proposes to make 
clear that the relevant filing may be a federal income tax or 
information return, and that the $5,000,000 must be reported as gross 
receipts or sales (net of returns and allowances) on the entity's IRS 
Form 1120, consolidated IRS Form 1120, IRS Form 1120-S, IRS Form 1065, 
or other applicable IRS form, excluding gross receipts or sales from 
sources outside the United States, as determined under federal income 
tax principles. For entities that are part of an affiliated group of 
corporations within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. 1504 that filed a 
consolidated return, FinCEN proposes that the applicable amount should 
be the amount reported on the group's consolidated return. FinCEN's 
proposal to exclude gross receipts or sales from sources outside the 
United States reflects the CTA's domestic focus in requiring that a 
qualifying entity have filed ``Federal tax returns in the United 
States.'' \137\ This focus on the United States is reinforced in other 
prongs requiring that an entity's 20 or more employees be employed in 
the United States, and that the entity have an operating presence at an 
office within the United States.\138\ FinCEN believes that focusing on 
gross receipts or sales from U.S. sources would maintain consistency 
with the exemption's overall United States-centric approach, but 
welcomes comments on the feasibility of applying this test to only 
U.S.-sourced gross receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxi)(II) (emphasis added).
    \138\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxi)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xxii) would clarify the exemption 
for entities in which ``the ownership interests are owned or 
controlled, directly or indirectly, by 1 or more [specified entity 
types that do not qualify as reporting companies].'' \139\ FinCEN is 
calling this the ``subsidiary exemption,'' and interprets the definite 
article ``the'' in the quoted statutory text as requiring an entity to 
be owned entirely by one or more specified exempt entities in order to 
qualify for it. In addition to expressing greater fidelity to the 
statutory language, this interpretation also prevents entities that are 
only partially owned by exempt entities from shielding all of their 
ultimate beneficial owners--including those that beneficially own the 
entity through a non-exempt parent--from disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxii) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The last category of exempt entities for which FinCEN proposes to 
clarify ambiguous statutory language is the exemption for ``dormant 
entities'' that meet the criteria provided at 31 U.S.C. 
5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiii). Under the CTA, the exemption applies to any 
entity: (1) ``In existence for over 1 year;'' (2) that is not engaged 
in active business; (3) that is not owned, directly or indirectly, by a 
foreign person; (4) that has not, in the preceding 12-month period, 
experienced a change in ownership or sent or received more than $1,000; 
and (5) that does not otherwise hold assets of any type.
    The phrase ``in existence for over 1 year'' is ambiguous because 
the CTA did not specify whether it refers to entities in existence for 
over one year at the time of the CTA's enactment or to entities in 
existence for over one year at any time the statute is applied. While 
other prongs of the exemption use the present tense (``is'' not engaged 
in active business; ``does'' not hold assets) and such present-tense 
language generally does not include the past, the first prong notably 
lacks any verb, much less one in the present tense.\140\ Moreover, both 
the CTA's text and its legislative history suggest that the exemption 
was understood to be a ``grandfathering'' provision for entities in 
existence before the CTA's enactment. Another CTA provision expressly 
refers to entities subject to this exemption as ``exempt grandfathered 
entities.'' \141\ And in a floor statement made just before the passage 
of the CTA, Senator Brown explained that ``[t]he exemption for dormant 
companies is intended to function solely as a grandfathering provision 
that exempts from disclosure only those dormant companies in existence 
prior to the bill's enactment.'' \142\ He added, ``No entity created 
after the date of enactment of the bill is intended to qualify for 
exemption as a dormant company.'' \143\ It therefore appears reasonable 
to interpret the dormant entity exemption as a grandfathering provision 
applicable only to entities in existence for over one year at the time 
the CTA was enacted. This interpretation also limits opportunities for 
bad actors to exploit the exemption by forming exempt shelf companies 
for later use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229, 2236 (2010).
    \141\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(E).
    \142\ Senator Sherrod Brown, National Defense Authorization Act, 
Congressional Record 166:208 (December 9, 2020), p. S7311, available 
at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-12-09/pdf/CREC-2020-12-09.pdf.
    \143\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN notes that this exemption's first prong may appear to bear 
some similarity to its fourth, with the latter requiring an entity to 
have not experienced a change in ownership or sent or received more 
than $1,000 ``in the preceding 12-month period.'' However, FinCEN does 
not propose to interpret this language as applying to the 12-month 
period before the enactment of the CTA. This fourth prong not only uses 
different language from the first, but also focuses on repeatable 
actions by the entity rather than its creation date. Requiring an 
entity to be in existence one year before the CTA's enactment is 
consistent with an understanding of the exemption as a grandfathering 
provision for entities created before that date because creation is a 
one-time event. Changes in ownership and funds transfers, by contrast, 
are not necessarily events that occur once and then never again. They 
may occur at any time after an entity comes into existence. For these 
actions, we do not believe that the 12-month period prior to the 
enactment of the CTA is more significant than any other subsequent 12-
month period. If a company experiences an ownership change or transfers 
more than $1,000 at some later date after the CTA's enactment, we do 
not see a reason why the company should be subject to the exemption 
simply because it did not take those actions for the 12 months prior to 
the CTA's enactment. FinCEN therefore proposes to interpret the first 
prong of the dormant entity exemption as applying to the one-year 
period before enactment, but FinCEN understands the fourth prong as 
applying to any 12-month period.
    In addition to the exemptions Congress specified in the CTA, 
Congress also provided an exemption for ``any entity or class of 
entities that the Secretary of the Treasury, with the written 
concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, has, by regulation, determined should be exempt.'' \144\ To 
make such a determination, there must be a finding that requiring 
beneficial ownership information ``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.'' \145\ Commenters to the 
ANPRM suggested creating exemptions for state-licensed accounting 
companies; federally regulated health care

[[Page 69941]]

institutions; limited liability companies owned by spouses solely to 
hold real property; certain Tribal entities; certain commodity pools, 
additional pooled investment vehicles, additional investment advisors, 
and family offices; companies with less than a defined capitalization 
or revenue threshold; well-established businesses; and entities owned 
by U.S. persons with significant asset holdings held in custody at 
regulated financial institutions. Many of these commenters, however, 
did not explain why they believe their proposed additions would meet 
the statutory standard. Other commenters from civil society 
organizations recommended construing existing exemptions narrowly and 
not introducing new exemptions at this time. While the proposed rule 
would not create additional exemptions, FinCEN will continue to 
consider whether any additional exemptions would be appropriate. FinCEN 
welcomes comments on this approach and whether to adopt exemptions 
beyond those specifically required by statute. FinCEN also welcomes 
comments on how, when considering a new exemption, the agency should 
make the statutorily required determinations that collecting beneficial 
ownership information for a potentially exempt entity or class of 
entities ``would not serve the public interest'' and also ``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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv).
    \145\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters also encouraged FinCEN to require exempt entities 
to file a report in order to claim an exemption. Such a requirement may 
make FinCEN's BOI database significantly more useful by making it clear 
which entities did not file BOI because they intentionally claimed 
exemptions and which simply failed to satisfy the reporting obligation. 
Many other commenters opposed such a requirement, arguing it was 
inconsistent with both the statutory language of the CTA and the CTA's 
legislative history, and likely to be highly burdensome. One commenter 
suggested that a reasonable alternative to any affirmative exemption 
filing requirement would be a requirement to provide an exemption 
certification to FinCEN only upon request from the bureau or another 
applicable governmental authority. However, the commenter did not 
identify the statutory authority that would permit FinCEN to impose 
such a requirement. FinCEN invites comment on any applicable statutory 
authority. At least one commenter noted that FinCEN should permit 
exempt entities to voluntarily file exemption certifications. FinCEN 
invites comment on the appropriateness of inviting such voluntary 
filings.

E. Timing of Reports; Update or Correction of Reports

i. Timing of Initial Reports
    The CTA describes the filing deadlines for both reporting companies 
in existence prior to the effective date of the regulations and for 
reporting companies formed or registered after the effective date. The 
provision at 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B) provides that any reporting 
company that has been formed or registered before the effective date of 
the reporting regulations shall, in a timely manner, and not later than 
two years after the effective date of the reporting regulations, submit 
to FinCEN a report that contains the information described in 31 U.S.C. 
5336(b)(2). Separately, 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(C) provides that in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any reporting 
company that has been formed or registered after the effective date of 
the regulations shall, at the time of formation or registration, submit 
to FinCEN a report that contains the information described in 31 U.S.C. 
5336(b)(2).
    Thus, the CTA requires FinCEN to prescribe regulations for exactly 
when reporting companies must file. The proposed regulations elaborate 
and clarify these filing deadlines in a manner that seeks to both 
minimize burdens on filers and to advance the objective of providing a 
timely and accurate database of highly useful information for 
authorized users. For newly formed or registered companies, proposed 31 
CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(i) specifies that a domestic reporting company 
formed on or after the effective date of the regulation shall file a 
report within 14 calendar days of the date it was formed as specified 
by a secretary of state or similar office. Proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(a)(1)(ii) specifies that any entity that becomes a foreign 
reporting company on or after the effective date of the regulation 
shall file a report within 14 calendar days of the date it first became 
a foreign reporting company. Both proposed rules are intended to 
minimize the compliance burden by providing a bright-line rule as well 
as a reasonable period of time for newly formed or registered reporting 
companies to collect and report information from their beneficial 
owners and company applicants. At the same time, FinCEN seeks to 
compile a timely and highly useful database of beneficial ownership 
information available to law enforcement and other authorized users. 
FinCEN believes that allowing 14 days for such initial reporting to 
FinCEN will provide newly formed or registered reporting companies 
reasonable time to collect the information specified in proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(1) from their beneficial owners and company applicants and 
to enter the required information about the company, its beneficial 
owners, and its company applicants into a form provided by FinCEN. 
Because the entity will be newly formed or registered, FinCEN 
anticipates that much of the required information will be readily 
available to the reporting company, and that the burden on the 
reporting company to collect and provide this information within 14 
calendar days will be minimal. FinCEN also believes that requiring 
initial reports to be filed relatively quickly will help make the BOI 
reporting process a natural part of the formation or registration 
process, furthering the CTA's objective to ``set a clear, Federal 
standard for incorporation practices.'' \146\ However, based on 
comments received in response to the ANPRM, FinCEN is aware there may 
be special circumstances in which a 14-calendar-day deadline to file an 
initial report is insufficient or impractical.\147\ FinCEN welcomes 
additional comments on whether the 14-day deadline for newly formed or 
registered reporting companies to file an initial report is reasonable, 
and on whether there are situations in which this time is likely to be 
insufficient and proposals to address such situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ CTA, Section 6406(5)(A).
    \147\ For example, one commenter noted that it may take longer 
than 14 days for an entity to complete necessary registrations or 
approvals that would exclude the entity from the definition of a 
``reporting company.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For entities formed or registered before the effective date of the 
regulations, the CTA requires filing of beneficial owner and company 
applicant information ``in a timely manner,'' but no later than two 
years after the effective date of the final regulations. Proposed 31 
CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(iii) would require any domestic reporting company 
created before the effective date of the regulation and any entity that 
became a foreign reporting company before the effective date of the 
regulation to file a report not later than one year after the effective 
date of the regulation. This approach balances the need for effective 
outreach and notice to preexisting companies with the need to collect

[[Page 69942]]

beneficial information in a timely manner and ensure a level playing 
field between all legal entities that constitute reporting companies.
    A one-year reporting deadline is designed to provide reporting 
companies sufficient time to receive notice of the reporting 
requirement, conduct appropriate due diligence to determine the company 
applicant and beneficial owners, collect the required information from 
the beneficial owners and company applicants, and provide the required 
information about the company, its beneficial owners, and its company 
applicants to FinCEN. FinCEN intends to work with secretaries of state 
or similar offices and to leverage other communication channels to 
ensure that reporting companies in existence prior to the effective 
date of the regulations receive timely notice of and guidance on their 
BOI reporting obligations. In proposing a one-year deadline, FinCEN has 
sought to ensure that the database is highly useful to law enforcement 
by obtaining BOI for existing entities as soon as possible while also 
minimizing burdens on reporting companies and secretaries of state and 
similar offices that will need adequate time to comply with the new 
rules. FinCEN invites comments on whether the one-year period for 
preexisting reporting companies to file their initial report is 
reasonable.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(1)(iv) would require entities that are 
not reporting companies by virtue of one or more exemptions to file a 
report within 30 calendar days after the date on which the entity no 
longer meets any exemption criteria.\148\ Whenever an entity does not 
meet the criteria for an exemption and otherwise qualifies as a 
reporting company, it becomes subject to the CTA's requirement that 
``each reporting company shall submit to FinCEN a report'' of its 
BOI.\149\ Although the CTA specifies when newly formed and existing 
reporting companies must file their reports,\150\ it does not in most 
cases specify when a report must be filed by a previously exempt 
entity.\151\ FinCEN believes that 30 days from the date an exemption 
ceases to apply is a reasonable time for once-exempt entities to file 
an initial report with FinCEN. Specifically, FinCEN believes that 
keeping the database updated and accurate is essential to ensuring it 
is highly useful and that 30 days provides sufficient time for entities 
that previously evaluated their eligibility for an exemption from the 
reporting requirements and claimed such an exemption to collect and 
file the required BOI with FinCEN. Again, FinCEN invites comments on 
whether this proposed timeframe is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ The trigger date is delayed by statute 180 days for legal 
entities described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
that lose their tax exemption. 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(xix)(I), 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(2)(xix)(A).
    \149\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(A).
    \150\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B); 5336(b)(1)(C).
    \151\ The CTA specifies that a report must be filed at the time 
an entity no longer meets the criteria for the subsidiary exemption 
and the grandfathered inactive business exemption. See 31 U.S.C. 
5336(b)(2)(D), (E). However, in light of the express obligation in 
section 5336(b)(1)(A) for all reporting companies to file reports, 
FinCEN does not interpret the provisions focused on those two 
exemptions as relieving reporting companies of a filing obligation 
when they no longer meet the criteria for other exemptions. While 
the provisions focused on those two exemptions are arguably 
unnecessary in light of the general filing obligation, Congress may 
have included those provisions to make itself clear, as it may have 
had particular concern about those two exemptions. See, e.g., Loving 
v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (recognizing that, 
despite the general desire to avoid surplusage, ``lawmakers, like 
Shakespeare characters, sometimes employ overlap or redundancy so as 
to remove any doubt and make doubly sure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Update or Correction of Reports
    The provision at 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D) requires reporting 
companies to update information submitted in prior reports to FinCEN in 
a timely manner, and not later than one year after the date on which 
there is a change with respect to any of the information described in 
31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2). The CTA also provides a safe harbor for persons 
who inadvertently submit inaccurate information in a report to FinCEN 
if they, among other things, voluntarily and promptly file a corrected 
report no later than 90 days after the submission of the inaccurate 
report.
    FinCEN proposes to provide reporting companies with 14 calendar 
days to correct any inaccurate information filed with FinCEN from the 
date on which the inaccuracy is discovered and 30 calendar days to 
update with FinCEN information that has changed after filing. 
Specifically, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(3) would require reporting 
companies to file a report to correct inaccurately filed information 
within 14 calendar days after the date on which the reporting company 
becomes aware or has reason to know that any required information 
contained in any report that the reporting company filed with FinCEN 
was inaccurate when filed and remains inaccurate. This would include 
information about any beneficial owner and the reporting company. 
FinCEN believes 14 calendar days provides adequate time for a reporting 
company, after it knows or has reason to know that it has made an 
inaccurate filing, to conduct appropriate due diligence and correct the 
information. This time frame is intended to be consistent with the 14-
calendar-day timeframe for a newly formed or registered reporting 
company to file an initial report with FinCEN. FinCEN believes quickly 
correcting errors is essential for fulfilling Congress's instruction 
that BOI reported to the agency be ``accurate, complete, and highly 
useful.'' \152\ FinCEN anticipates this deadline will present a low 
burden on a reporting company that has discovered that inaccurate 
information has inadvertently been filed. It also provides incentives 
to reporting companies to ensure that accurate information is filed at 
the time an initial or updated submission is made to FinCEN, which is 
consistent with the broader goal of maintaining an accurate database 
for law enforcement and other authorized users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(4)(b)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(3) also notes that a corrected report 
filed under this paragraph within this 14-day period shall be deemed to 
satisfy 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(3)(C)(i)(I)(bb) \153\ if filed within 90 
calendar days after the date on which an inaccurate report is filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ The provision at 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(3)(C) provides that a 
person shall not be subject to civil or criminal penalties under 31 
U.S.C. 5336(h)(3)(A) if the person has reason to believe that any 
report submitted by that person to FinCEN contains inaccurate 
information and, in accordance with regulations issued by the 
Secretary, voluntarily and promptly, and in no case later than 90 
days after the date on which the person submitted the report, 
submits a report containing corrected information. However, this 
safe harbor does not apply if, at the time the person submits the 
report, the person acts for the purpose of evading the reporting 
requirements and has actual knowledge that any information contained 
in the report is inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CTA provides that the deadline for updating information 
established by regulations must be ``in a timely manner'' but not later 
than one year after there was a change in the information. FinCEN is 
proposing a 30-calendar-day deadline for updating information that was 
accurate when filed but has subsequently changed. Specifically, 
proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2) would require reporting companies to 
file an updated report within 30 calendar days after the date on which 
there is any change with respect to any information previously 
submitted to FinCEN, including any change with respect to who is a 
beneficial owner of a reporting company, as well as any change with 
respect to information reported for any particular beneficial owner or 
applicant. This proposed rule would also apply to a reporting company 
that subsequently becomes eligible for an exemption from

[[Page 69943]]

the reporting requirement after the filing of its initial report. One 
commenter noted it is important to avoid ambiguity as to whether a 
change in information superseded by subsequent changes within the 30-
calendar-day window must be reported. That is to say, if a reporting 
company has a change in substantial control that triggers the 30-
calendar-day window (e.g., Individual A becomes a beneficial owner 
because they exercise substantial control over the reporting company), 
and then another change in substantial control within the 30-calendar-
day window (i.e., Individual A ceases to exercise substantial control 
over the reporting company), is the reporting company obliged to report 
anything about Individual A? In this situation, the proposed rule would 
require two separate reports from the reporting company, noting the 
addition and then the removal of Individual A as a beneficial owner. 
The first report would be due within 30 calendar days of Individual A 
gaining substantial control over the reporting company; the second 
report would be due within 30 days of Individual A ceasing to exercise 
substantial control over the reporting company.
    FinCEN considers that keeping the database current and accurate is 
essential to keeping it highly useful, and that allowing reporting 
companies to delay mandatory updates by more than 30 days--or allowing 
them to report updates on an annual basis--could cause a significant 
degradation in accuracy and usefulness of the BOI. FinCEN also believes 
that a 30-calendar-day deadline is necessary to limit the possible 
abuse of shelf companies--i.e., entities formed as generic corporations 
without assets and then effectively assigned to new owners. The longer 
updates are delayed, the longer a shelf company can be ``off the 
shelf'' without notice to law enforcement of the company's new 
beneficial owners, and without any notice to financial institutions 
that they should scrutinize transactions involving the company from the 
perspective of its new beneficial owners. FinCEN has considered the 
costs of the compliance burden that the 30-calendar-day timeframe may 
place on reporting companies in the regulatory analysis in Section VI 
below. To minimize those costs while ensuring that the database be 
highly useful, and also recognizing that this requirement is not based 
on when a reporting company knows or has reason to know that 
information in a prior report has changed, FinCEN proposes allowing 30 
days for such filings, as opposed to the 14 calendar days provided for 
the correction of inaccurate reports. FinCEN believes the 30 day 
timeframe is sufficient time for a reporting company to identify and 
report updates to the information previously submitted to FinCEN. 
FinCEN recognizes that several commenters recommended a 180-day or 1-
year period to allow updates of reports, and some suggested that FinCEN 
only use a shorter period for changes in beneficial owners while 
retaining a longer period for changes in the information reported about 
a particular beneficial owner. FinCEN selected a 30-calendar-day 
deadline rather than a longer deadline to update reports in an effort 
to consider both the burden on reporting companies and the desire of 
both law enforcement and financial institutions to have a database that 
is as up-to-date as possible.
    The CTA further requires Treasury to conduct a review, in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, to evaluate the timing of updates to reports against the 
backdrop of benefits to law enforcement and burdens to filers.\154\ 
FinCEN thus solicits comments on the burdens that the requirement to 
correct inaccurate information within 14 days and to update changed 
information within 30 days would impose on reporting companies, on the 
degree to which the accuracy and usefulness of the database depend upon 
prompt updates, and on any other relevant topics regarding the proposed 
rule's approach to changes or updates to a reporting company's 
reportable information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2)(i) provides that if a reporting 
company becomes exempt after filing an initial report, this change will 
be deemed a change requiring an updated report. The CTA does not 
expressly require a reporting company to file a report indicating that 
it has become exempt. Nevertheless, FinCEN believes the authority to 
require such a report is implicit in the CTA. As explained above, the 
express requirement in 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A) to identify beneficial 
owners and applicants for each reporting company implies a requirement 
to identify the associated company. It likewise implies a requirement 
that the company identify itself as a reporting company. This implied 
representation that a company reporting its beneficial owners is in 
fact a reporting company is therefore among the information that 31 
U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(A) requires to be reported, albeit implicitly. And 
when there is a change with respect to any such information, 31 U.S.C. 
5336(b)(1)(D) requires a report that updates the information relating 
to the change. FinCEN thus believes that it is consistent with the CTA 
to require a reporting company to file a report indicating that it has 
become exempt. Having notice that an entity that was a reporting 
company subsequently became eligible for an exemption to the definition 
of a ``reporting company'' will help FinCEN preserve enforcement 
resources by allowing it to focus on reporting companies that failed to 
report, rather than on entities that had previously filed reports but 
that became exempt from the requirement.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(2)(ii) provides that if an individual 
is a beneficial owner of a reporting company because the individual 
owns at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting 
company, and such beneficial owner dies, a change with respect to the 
required information will be deemed to occur when the estate of a 
deceased beneficial owner is settled. This proposed rule is intended to 
clarify that a reporting company is not required to file an updated 
report to notify FinCEN of the death of a beneficial owner. However, 
when the estate of a deceased beneficial owner is settled either 
through the operation of the intestacy laws of a jurisdiction within 
the United States or a testamentary deposition, the reporting company 
is required to file an updated report removing the deceased former 
beneficial owner and, to the extent appropriate, identifying any new 
beneficial owners. Moreover, the other provisions of proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(1) and (d) would still apply--namely, that the reporting 
company would be required to report any beneficial owner who meets the 
substantial control or ownership components of the proposed rule as a 
result of another beneficial owner's death. This proposed rule is 
intended promote efficiency and limit the burden on reporting companies 
by reducing the number of updates that a reporting company must file in 
the event of the death of a beneficial owner.
    As noted above, FinCEN is still developing reporting protocols and 
relevant forms, and is not proposing a final format or mechanism of 
reporting at this time. FinCEN will prescribe the forms and 
instructions for filing the required reports, consistent with the final 
rules. Reporting companies will not have to submit their own letters to 
report information to FinCEN.

[[Page 69944]]

F. Reporting Violations

    The provision at 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(1) makes it unlawful for any 
person to ``willfully provide, or attempt to provide, false or 
fraudulent beneficial ownership information . . . to FinCEN'' or to 
``willfully fail to report complete or updated beneficial ownership 
information to FinCEN.'' The CTA further provides for civil and 
criminal penalties for any person violating that obligation.\155\ Such 
person shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day a 
violation continues or has not been remedied, and may be fined up to 
$10,000 and imprisoned for up to two years, or both, for a criminal 
violation.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(3)(A).
    \156\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(g) adopts the language of 31 U.S.C. 
5336(h)(1) and clarifies four potential ambiguities. First, the 
proposed regulations clarify that the term ``person'' includes any 
individual, reporting company, or other entity. Second, the proposed 
regulations clarify that the term ``beneficial ownership information'' 
includes any information provided to FinCEN under this section. Third, 
the proposed regulations clarify that a person ``provides or attempts 
to provide beneficial ownership information to FinCEN,'' within the 
meaning of section 5336(h)(1), if such person does so directly or 
indirectly, including by providing such information to another person 
for purposes of a report or application under section. While only 
reporting companies are directly required to file reports or 
applications with FinCEN, individual beneficial owners and company 
applicants may provide information about themselves to reporting 
companies in order for the reporting companies to comply with their 
obligations under the CTA. The accuracy of the database may therefore 
depend on the accuracy of the information supplied by individuals as 
well as reporting companies, making it essential that such individuals 
be liable if they willfully provide false or fraudulent information to 
be filed with FinCEN by a reporting company.
    Finally, the proposed regulations clarify that a person ``fails to 
report'' complete or updated beneficial ownership information to 
FinCEN, within the meaning of section 5336(h)(1), if such person 
directs or controls another person with respect to any such failure to 
report, or is in substantial control of a reporting company when it 
fails to report. While the CTA requires reporting companies to file 
reports and prohibits failures to report, it does not appear to specify 
who may be liable if required information is not reported. Because 
section 5336(h)(1) makes it unlawful for ``any person'' to fail to 
report, and not just a reporting company, this obligation may be 
interpreted as applying to responsible individuals in addition to the 
companies themselves. To the extent an individual willfully directs a 
company not to report or willfully fails to report while in substantial 
control of a reporting company, potential penalties against such 
individuals may be necessary to ensure that companies comply with their 
obligations. This is essential to achieving the CTA's primary objective 
of preventing malign actors from using legal entities to conceal their 
ownership and activities. Malign actors who form entities and fail to 
report required beneficial ownership information may not be deterred by 
penalties applicable only to such entities. Absent individual 
liability, malign actors might seek to create new entities to replace 
old ones whenever an entity is subject to liability, or might otherwise 
attempt to use the corporate form to insulate themselves from the 
consequences of their willful conduct.
    One commenter suggested exploring the idea of the termination of 
entities that willfully refuse to file. However, the commenter did not 
identify what authority under the CTA would permit FinCEN to take such 
action. FinCEN also notes that several commenters expressed a desire 
for FinCEN to take a conservative approach to enforcement of the 
statute, at least initially, for instance by being clear that FinCEN 
will not impose fines except in the case of other illegal activity or 
that FinCEN will take a very flexible compliance approach during the 
early stages of implementation. FinCEN will consider these comments in 
the exercise of its enforcement discretion and welcomes additional 
comments on this subject.

G. Definitions

    As previously noted, many of the terms for this proposed rule are 
defined in 31 U.S.C. 5336. With the exceptions of the definitions 
discussed separately above and below, FinCEN has followed those 
meanings as set out by Congress, with some minor clarifications.
    Under proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(1), the term ``employee'' would 
have the meaning given it in 26 CFR 54.4980H-1(a)(15). The CTA does not 
expressly define the term ``employee,'' but the proposed definition is 
established and familiar given its use in the Affordable Care Act.\157\ 
Using the definition here promotes regulatory consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See 26 U.S.C. 4980H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(2) would retain the statutory 
definition and define ``FinCEN identifier'' as the unique identifying 
number assigned by FinCEN to a legal entity or individual under this 
section.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(3) would define ``foreign person'' as a 
person who is not a United States person.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(4) would define ``Indian Tribe'' as any 
Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or 
community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as 
an Indian Tribe as set forth in section 102 of the Federally Recognized 
Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5130).
    Under proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(5), an individual is lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence if such individual has been lawfully 
accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as 
an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws and such status 
not having changed as set forth in section 101(a) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)).
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(6) would define ``operating presence at 
a physical office within the United States'' to mean that an entity 
regularly conducts its business at a physical location in the United 
States that the entity owns or leases, that is not the place of 
residence of any individual, and that is physically distinct from the 
place of business of any other unaffiliated entity.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(7) would define a ``pooled investment 
vehicle'' as: (i) Any investment company, as defined in section 3(a) of 
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)); or (ii) any 
company that would be an investment company under that section but for 
the exclusion provided from that definition by paragraph (1) or (7) of 
section 3(c) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)); and is identified by its 
legal name by the applicable investment adviser in the Form ADV (or 
successor form) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(8) would define ``senior officer'' to 
mean any individual holding the position or exercising the authority of 
a president, secretary, treasurer, chief financial officer, general 
counsel, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, or any

[[Page 69945]]

other officer, regardless of official title, who performs a similar 
function.
    As noted previously, proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(9) would define 
``state'' as any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin 
Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
United States.
    Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(f)(10) would define the term ``United 
States person'' as having the meaning given the term in section 7701(a) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

H. Effective Date

    The CTA authorizes FinCEN to determine the effective date of the 
BOI reporting rule. FinCEN does not propose an effective date in this 
proposed regulation, but seeks views on the timing of the effective 
date and any potential factors to be considered. FinCEN is committed to 
identifying the soonest possible effective date after publication of 
the final rule. FinCEN recognizes that the collection of beneficial 
ownership information is critical to protecting U.S. national security 
and other interests and will advance efforts to counter money 
laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activity. It will 
also bring the United States into compliance with international AML/CFT 
standards and support U.S. leadership in combatting corruption and 
other illicit finance. A timely effective date will help to achieve 
national security and law enforcement objectives and support Congress' 
goals in enacting the CTA.
    FinCEN also notes that certain practical steps must be completed 
prior to the effective date and the initiation of the collection of 
information, and it is undertaking significant work towards achieving a 
timely effective date. These steps include the design and build of a 
new IT system--the Beneficial Ownership Secure System, or BOSS--to 
collect and provide access to BOI. Upon the CTA's enactment, FinCEN 
began a process for BOSS program initiation and acquisition planning 
that will lead to the development of a detailed planning and 
implementation document. Once greater progress is made towards the 
final reporting rule and a parallel rulemaking effort relating to 
access to and disclosure of BOI, which will provide concrete guidance 
on the design and build of the BOSS, FinCEN will move expeditiously to 
the execution phase of the project, which will include several 
technology projects that will be executed in parallel.
    The effective date for the final reporting rule will also turn on 
several additional factors, such as: (1) How long reporting companies, 
and small businesses in particular, need to comply with the new rules; 
(2) the time needed for secretaries of state and Tribal authorities to 
understand the new requirements and to update their websites and other 
documentation to notify reporting companies of their obligations under 
the CTA; and (3) the anticipated timeline for revising the CDD Rule, 
which is triggered by the effective date of the final reporting rule. 
Secretaries of state anticipate that they will need to field a high 
volume of questions and devote significant resources to addressing 
reporting companies' concerns, even with a delayed effective date that 
provides sufficient time to educate reporting companies about their 
responsibilities, distribute guidance, and ensure that reporting 
mechanisms are fully functional and user-friendly. Absent a coordinated 
effort with state- and Tribe-level authorities, a reporting requirement 
could create confusion and unintended liability for businesses. FinCEN 
intends to conduct ongoing outreach with stakeholders, including 
secretaries of state and Indian Tribes, trade groups, and others, to 
ensure coordinated efforts to provide notice and sufficient guidance to 
all potential reporting companies. However, FinCEN welcomes comments on 
how long other stakeholders such as secretaries of state and local 
authorities will need to provide notice of and guidance on the BOI 
reporting requirements to reporting companies.

V. Request for Comment

    FinCEN continues in this NPRM to seek comment on how best to 
implement the reporting requirements of the CTA, and responsive 
comments can now focus on the proposed reporting rule that FinCEN has 
developed. FinCEN seeks comment from all parts of the public and 
Federal Government, with respect to the proposed rule as a whole and 
specific provisions discussed above.
    FinCEN invites comment on any and all aspects of the proposed rule, 
and specifically seeks comments on the following questions:

Understanding the Rule

    1. How can the organization of the rule text be improved to make it 
easier to understand and implement?
    2. How can the language of the rule text be simplified or 
streamlined to make it easier to understand and implement?

Reporting Requirement

    3. In general, is the description of the information FinCEN is 
proposing to require reporting companies to report about a beneficial 
owner and company applicant sufficiently clear? If not, what additional 
clarification should FinCEN provide? Are there other categories of 
information FinCEN should collect about beneficial owners and company 
applicants, taking into consideration the statutory language of the 
CTA? Is there additional information that would be useful for FinCEN to 
collect, but which would require further authorization by Congress?
    4. Is it clear what the requirement to report a beneficial owner's 
residential address ``for tax residency purposes'' means? If not, how 
could the regulatory language be clarified? Are there cases where a 
respondent could have difficulty providing tax residency information, 
or where other residence information would be more generally valuable 
than tax residency information?
    5. In general, is the description of the information FinCEN is 
proposing to require reporting companies to report about themselves 
sufficiently clear? If not, what additional clarification should FinCEN 
provide? Is there additional information about a reporting company that 
FinCEN should collect to ensure that it can identify and distinguish 
between different reporting companies, and to allow for effective 
searching of the beneficial ownership database?
    6. What value can FinCEN reasonably expect from its proposed 
voluntary mechanism for collecting TINs of beneficial owners and 
company applicants? How can such information enhance the overall value 
of the information collected under this reporting requirement? Are 
there potentially negative consequences to a voluntary collection of 
this data? For instance, do businesses have particular concerns about 
providing or not providing such information?
    7. Does FinCEN have the authority under the CTA to require that a 
person filing a report or application with FinCEN pursuant to proposed 
31 CFR 1010.380(b) certify that the report is accurate and complete?
    8. In general, is the term ``business street address'' sufficiently 
clear on its face, or does it require further clarification to avoid 
the reporting of P.O. boxes or the addresses of formation agents, 
agents for the service of process, and other third parties as a 
reporting company's ``business street address''? Would it improve the 
clarity of the reporting requirement to substitute the

[[Page 69946]]

term ``street address of the reporting company's principal place of 
business''?
    9. Should the reporting requirement for foreign reporting companies 
be more specific with respect to the reporting of a business address? 
If so, should it specify provision of a U.S. business street address if 
possible, a principal place of business (even if outside the United 
States), or some other alternative?
    10. Is the process by which FinCEN is providing notice to the 
public about the specific reporting requirements of this regulation 
sufficiently clear and deliberate to give interested parties adequate 
notice, opportunity to comment, and opportunity to prepare to comply 
with the requirements?

FinCEN Identifier

    11. Are the proposed requirements for obtaining a FinCEN identifier 
from FinCEN and using a FinCEN identifier sufficiently clear?
    12. If an individual beneficial owner has obtained a FinCEN 
identifier and provided its FinCEN identifier to a reporting company, 
should a reporting company be required, rather than merely permitted, 
to use the FinCEN identifier in lieu of the four pieces of 
identification information (i.e., name, date of birth, street address, 
and unique identification number) the reporting company must report to 
FinCEN for the individual beneficial owner, as is proposed in the rule?

Special Reporting Rules

    13. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b)(3) sets out special reporting 
rules. Two of these are mandated by the CTA--the use of the FinCEN 
identifier, and the special rule for foreign pooled investment 
vehicles. FinCEN created the third and fourth--the special rule for 
minor children and deceased company applicants--to clarify the core 
reporting requirements and ensure that they are workable considering 
the unanticipated consequences of certain statutory language. Are any 
other special reporting rules necessary to make the core reporting 
requirements, or the rule as a whole, work better? Please explain the 
necessity and propose regulatory language. In doing so, FinCEN 
encourages commenters to explain how their proposals are consistent 
with the text of the CTA.
    14. As noted in the previous question, proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(3)(iv) contains a special reporting rule applicable to 
situations in which the company applicant for a reporting company is 
deceased. Is it sufficient for FinCEN to permit a reporting company to 
report that fact, together with any information that the reporting 
company actually knows about its company applicant, or should FinCEN 
require other information?

Beneficial Owners

    15. Proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(d) interprets the CTA as providing for 
a relatively broad approach to the definition of beneficial ownership. 
How burdensome will this approach be for reporting companies? How 
useful will it be for national security, intelligence, and law 
enforcement activities? In addition to responding generally to this 
question, please provide specific considerations and data related to 
costs and burdens.
    16. One component of the proposed definition of beneficial owner is 
an individual who ``exercises substantial control over the reporting 
company.'' Is the definition of ``substantial control'' sufficiently 
clear for reporting companies to be able to understand and use it? In 
addition to responding generally to this question, please consider the 
following specific questions:
    i. Are there any indicators that are not sufficiently clear? What 
additional clarification could make it easier to consider these 
indicators when determining whether an individual exercises substantial 
control? Please propose regulatory language.
    ii. Does the catch-all provision (``any other form of substantial 
control over the reporting company'') enable a reporting company to 
identify the individual(s) in substantial control of the reporting 
company? What would the impact on be on the usefulness, accuracy, or 
completeness of information in the database if the definition of 
``substantial control'' lacked such a catch-all provision?
    iii. Are there any additional indicators of substantial control 
that FinCEN should consider expressly including in the regulatory 
definition?
    17. The statutory definition of beneficial owner also includes an 
individual ``owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership 
interests.'' Is the approach to first define ``ownership interests'' 
useful? In addition to responding generally to this question, please 
consider the following specific questions:
    i. Is the proposed definition of ``ownership interests'' 
sufficiently clear for reporting companies to be able to understand and 
use it? What additional clarification could make it more useful? Please 
propose explanatory regulatory language.
    ii. Are there any aspects of the proposed rule on the determination 
of whether an individual owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership 
interests of a reporting company that are not sufficiently clear? What 
additional clarification could make it easier to calculate whether one 
owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership interests? Please propose 
explanatory regulatory language.
    18. Are there any aspects of the exceptions that are not 
sufficiently clear? What additional clarification could make it easier 
to determine whether an individual is excluded from the definition of 
beneficial owner?
    19. FinCEN expects that the definition of beneficial owner is broad 
enough that every reporting company will have at least one beneficial 
owner to report. Is that expectation reasonable, and if not, what 
mechanism should FinCEN establish or what changes should FinCEN make to 
the proposed rule to make certain that every reporting company reports 
at least one beneficial owner?

Company Applicant

    20. Is the proposed definition of company applicant sufficiently 
clear in light of current law and current company filing and 
registration practices, or should FinCEN expand on this definition? If 
so how?

Reporting Company

    21. Is the proposed definition of ``reporting company'' 
sufficiently clearly to avoid confusion about whether an entity does or 
does not meet this requirement? If not, what additional clarifications 
could make it easier to determine whether this requirement applies to a 
particular entity?
    22. FinCEN's proposed definitions of domestic and foreign reporting 
company reference ``the secretary of state or a similar office'' that 
is involved in filings that create entities or register entities, 
respectively. Does this distinction result in different ``similar 
offices'' being applicable for domestic and foreign reporting 
companies?
    23. The proposed rule defines ``reporting company'' to include all 
domestic corporations and limited liability companies based on FinCEN's 
understanding that all corporations and limited liability companies are 
created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or a 
similar office under the law of a state or Indian Tribe. Are there any 
states or Indian Tribes where corporations or limited liability 
companies are not created by a filing of a document with a secretary of 
state or a similar office?
    24. In general, FinCEN believes the phrase ``other similar entity 
created by

[[Page 69947]]

the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office'' 
in the context of the definition of ``domestic reporting company'' 
would likely include limited liability partnerships, limited liability 
limited partnerships, business trusts (a/k/a statutory trusts or 
Massachusetts trusts), and most limited partnerships, because such 
entities appear typically to be created by a filing with a secretary of 
state or similar office. However, FinCEN understands that state and 
Tribal laws may differ on whether certain other types of legal or 
business forms--such as general partnerships, other types of trusts, 
and sole proprietorships--are created by a filing. Are there any states 
or Indian Tribes where general partnerships, other types of trusts, or 
sole proprietorships are created by the filing of a document with a 
secretary of state or similar office?
    25. FinCEN's proposed definition of foreign reporting company 
requires that the foreign entity is ``registered to do business'' in 
any state or Tribal jurisdiction. FinCEN understands that this 
threshold may be interpreted differently across U.S. jurisdictions. 
What activities would require foreign (non-U.S.) companies to register 
in a U.S. jurisdiction before they may conduct business in that 
jurisdiction, and what discrepancies exist in these standards across 
the jurisdictions?
    26. In general, are the proposed exemptions from the definition of 
``reporting company'' sufficiently clear, or are there aspects of any 
of the defined exemptions that FinCEN should clarify, similar to the 
exposition of the inactive business exemption? If so, how?
    27. Is the term ``full-time employee'' explained sufficiently 
clearly in the large operating company exemption?
    28. Is the term ``operating presence at a physical office within 
the United States,'' which is used in the large company exemption and 
other exemptions, defined sufficiently clearly? Is it appropriate that 
the term is defined to exclude a physical location that is also an 
individual's residence? If not, why not? Should the term include any 
other limitations or exclusions?
    29. Are there any exemptions from the definition of ``reporting 
company'' that should be defined more broadly or more narrowly? If so, 
which ones, why, and how?
    30. In addition to the proposed exemptions from the definition of 
``reporting company,'' are there any other categories of entities that 
are not currently subject to an exemption from the definition of 
``reporting company'' that FinCEN should consider for exemption and, if 
so, why?

Other Definitions

    31. While Congress defined many of the CTA's key terms within the 
statute, some--like ``public utility''--were left to FinCEN to 
interpret. If any of FinCEN's proposed definitions for these currently 
undefined terms warrant revision, which ones, why, and how?
    32. Are there any undefined terms in the proposed rule for which 
FinCEN did not provide definitions, but should? If so, which terms, why 
should FinCEN define them, and how?
Timing of Reports and Updates
    33. FinCEN believes the proposed timeframes for reporting, 
correcting, and updating information to be reported to FinCEN are 
within FinCEN's legal authority to propose, and are appropriate to 
ensure that the BOI collected is current, useful, and accurate without 
making the reporting requirement unduly burdensome. Is there any 
respect in which these timeframes should be altered because alteration 
is necessary to conform with the CTA or other law? Should any 
timeframes be altered because gains in ensuring information is current 
and accurate outweighs the burden imposed? Should any timeframes be 
altered because the burden imposed outweighs the gains in ensuring 
information is current and accurate?
    i. In particular, does the proposed timeline of one year for 
existing reporting companies to file an initial report impose undue 
burdens on reporting companies, secretaries of state, or other 
stakeholders? Is a longer timeline necessary? If so, why?
    ii. By contrast, is a shorter timeline necessary? If so, why?
    34. FinCEN has proposed that a reporting company that ceases to be 
entitled to an exemption from the definition of reporting company 
(under one or more of proposed exemptions in 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(i) 
through (xxiii)), report to FinCEN within 30 days after it no longer 
meets those criteria. Is it appropriate that all reporting company 
exemptions be handled in the same way? If not, explain how and why 
different exemptions should be handled differently.
    35. The proposed rule would require that a reporting company submit 
a corrected report to FinCEN not later than 14 days after the date that 
the reporting company knows or has reason to know that any information 
in a report submitted to FinCEN under this section was not correct when 
filed and remains incorrect. The rule also explains how the statutory 
safe harbor of the CTA for incorrect information will be applied. Are 
these proposed provisions an appropriate implementation of the 
requirements of the CTA? If not, why not?
    36. Should FinCEN require reporting companies that have terminated 
their legal existence report this to FinCEN? If terminated entities are 
not required to report their termination, how should FinCEN be made 
aware of their termination, to properly administer its record retention 
obligations?
    37. The proposed rule would require a reporting company that 
subsequently meets the criteria for any exemption under 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(i) through (xxiii) after the filing of an initial report 
to file an updated report within 30 days. Is 30 days sufficient to 
enable such legal entities to file such reports? Is it too long?
    38. Is the burden that a 30-day update requirement would impose on 
reporting companies justified by the degree to which the accuracy and 
usefulness of the database depend upon prompt updates? Are there other 
factors that FinCEN should consider in reviewing update timelines in 
consultation with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, as 
mandated by the CTA?
Reporting Violations
    39. Is FinCEN's articulation of what constitutes a reporting 
violation under the CTA sufficiently clear?
Effective Date of the Rule
    40. How much time is needed before the rule is effective to enable 
jurisdictions within the United States, reporting companies, and other 
stakeholders to incorporate any necessary changes into their systems 
and other procedures in tandem with other routine updates, and thereby 
enable reporting companies to reduce implementing costs? Should FinCEN 
consider a long effective date, and if so, why? Should FinCEN consider 
a shorter effective date, and if so, why?
    Please note that questions for comment specific to the Regulatory 
Analysis section that follows may be found at the end of that section.

VI. Regulatory Analysis

    FinCEN has analyzed the proposed rule as required under Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. FinCEN's analysis 
assumed the baseline scenario is the current regulatory framework, 
which has no beneficial ownership disclosure requirements to FinCEN. 
Thus, any estimated costs and benefits as a result

[[Page 69948]]

of the proposal are new relative to maintaining the current framework. 
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, FinCEN's analysis concluded 
that the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, pursuant to the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, FinCEN concluded that the proposed rule, 
if implemented, would result in an expenditure of $158 million or more 
annually by state, local, and Tribal governments or by the private 
sector.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires an assessment of 
mandates with an annual expenditures of $100 million or more, 
adjusted for inflation. The gross domestic product (GDP) deflator in 
1995, the date of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, is $71.868, 
while in 2020 it was $113.625. Thus, the inflation adjusted estimate 
for $100 million is $113.625/71.868 x 100 = $158 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs 
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is 
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, and public health and 
safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This 
proposed rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action'' 
and economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This proposed rule is necessary to comply with and implement the 
CTA. As described in the preamble, this proposed rule is consistent 
with the CTA's statutory mandate that the Secretary of the Treasury by 
regulation prescribe procedures and standards governing reports and the 
FinCEN identifier described in the CTA. The CTA states that the 
regulations shall be promulgated to the extent practicable: (1) To 
minimize burdens on reporting companies associated with the collection 
of BOI, including by eliminating duplicative requirements; and (2) to 
ensure that the BOI reported to FinCEN is accurate, complete, and 
highly useful. As also described throughout the preamble, FinCEN has 
carefully weighed these considerations while developing the proposed 
rule. The implementation of the CTA would promote the President's 
objective to combat illicit activity in the United States, including 
money laundering related to the financing of terrorism, corruption, 
proliferation, and other crimes.\159\ The proposed rule avoids undue 
interference with state, local, and Tribal governments. While such 
governments are important partners and consultative parties in the 
implementation of the CTA, as noted in the law itself, the proposed 
rule minimizes the interference with these governments (see alternative 
considered below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ Fighting corruption was identified as a Presidential 
priority in a Presidential Memorandum published on June 3, 2021. The 
memorandum specifically mentions bringing transparency to the United 
States and global financial systems. The White House, Memorandum on 
Establishing the Fight Against Corruption as a Core United States 
National Security Interest, (June 3, 2021), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/03/memorandum-on-establishing-the-fight-against-corruption-as-a-core-united-states-national-security-interest/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Costs
    The primary cost to the public associated with the proposed rule 
results from multiple information collection requirements. Pursuant to 
the proposed rule, reporting companies would be required to submit to 
FinCEN an initial report that contains certain identifying information 
for the reporting company, each identified beneficial owner, and each 
company applicant, as well as copies of acceptable identification 
documents for each identified beneficial owner and each company 
applicant. Reporting companies would also be required to update these 
reports. Individuals requesting a FinCEN identifier would be required 
to submit initial requests to FinCEN and update the identifying 
information associated with their FinCEN identifier.\160\ Finally, 
foreign pooled investment vehicles would be required to submit reports 
to FinCEN identifying a beneficial owner and update such information. A 
detailed analysis of the potential costs associated with these proposed 
information collection requirements is included in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section below (see Tables 6 and 7 below). The net present 
value of the total cost over a 10-year time horizon at a seven percent 
discount rate for these information collections is approximately $3.4 
billion. At a three percent discount rate, the net present value is 
approximately $3.98 billion as the aggregate cost estimate of the 
proposed rule. FinCEN estimates that it would cost each of the 25 
million domestic and foreign reporting companies that are estimated to 
currently exist approximately $45 apiece to prepare and submit an 
initial report in the first year that the BOI reporting requirements 
are in effect. In comparison, the state formation fee for creating a 
limited liability company could cost between $40 and $500, depending on 
the state.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ FinCEN is not separately calculating a cost estimate for 
entities requesting a FinCEN identifier, but rather FinCEN has 
included those costs as a part of the costs of submitting the BOI 
reports.
    \161\ The fee for Articles of Organization of a domestic limited 
liability company in Kentucky is $40. Kentucky Secretary of State, 
Business Filings Fees, available at https://sos.ky.gov/bus/business-filings/Pages/Fees.aspx The fee for a Certificate of Registration 
for a limited liability company in Massachusetts is $500. 
Massachusetts Secretary of State, Corporations Division Filing Fees, 
available at https://www.sec.state.ma.us/cor/corfees.htm. FinCEN 
also identified a website that provides the fees for all states, as 
a point of reference. See IncFile, Review State Filing Fees & LLC 
Costs, available at https://www.incfile.com/state-filing-fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Administering the regulation would also entail potential costs to 
FinCEN. Such costs include information technology (IT) development and 
ongoing annual maintenance, as well as processing electronic 
submissions of BOI data.\162\ FinCEN estimates that initial IT 
development costs would be $33 million \163\ with an additional $31 
million per year required to maintain the new BOI systems and the 
underlying FinCEN technology being leveraged to support the new 
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ FinCEN would also incur costs in administering access to 
BOI, but those costs will be considered in detail in a separate 
notice for the BOI access regulations.
    \163\ FinCEN's cost estimates will continue to evolve as more 
information about systems requirements and development costs become 
known. For example, the requirement to include scanned images of 
acceptable identification documents will increase the cost of system 
development and implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN may incur additional costs, besides those estimated above, 
while promoting compliance with the BOI reporting requirements, 
potentially including providing training on the requirements, 
publishing documents such as guidance and frequently asked questions 
(FAQs), and conducting outreach to and answering inquiries from the 
public. FinCEN does not currently have specific estimates for these 
costs, but estimates that there would be relatively modest personnel 
costs of less than $10 million associated with the reporting rule in 
both Fiscal Year 2022 and Fiscal Year 2023, with continuing recurring 
costs of roughly the same magnitude for ongoing outreach and 
enforcement thereafter.
    FinCEN and other government agencies may also incur costs in 
enforcing compliance with the regulation. FinCEN does not currently

[[Page 69949]]

have estimates for these costs, and they are not included in the 
estimates above. FinCEN plans to identify non-compliance with BOI 
reporting requirements \164\ by leveraging a variety of data sources, 
both internal and external. Because the external data sources may 
include third parties, FinCEN requests comment on what external data 
sources would be appropriate for FinCEN to leverage in identifying non-
compliance with the BOI reporting requirements and what potential costs 
may be incurred by such third parties, particularly state, local, and 
Tribal authorities and financial institutions. If the external data 
sources include third party commercial data, FinCEN assesses that the 
cost associated with accessing these databases would be modest and 
incremental, given that FinCEN regularly maintains access to such 
databases but may need to request additional licenses for employees. 
After identifying non-compliance, FinCEN may initiate outreach to the 
entity, work with law enforcement to investigate non-compliance, or 
initiate an enforcement action. FinCEN's enforcement of the BOI 
reporting requirements would also involve coordination with law 
enforcement agencies. These law enforcement agencies may also incur 
costs (time and resources) while conducting investigations into non-
compliance. FinCEN anticipates that costs to law enforcement agencies 
that have access to the BOI data would be assessed in the BOI access 
regulations, and therefore is not estimating them here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ This would include identifying potential non-compliance 
with the proposed rule through reporting of false information or 
through failing to file an initial or updated report when required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule does not impose direct costs on state, local, and 
Tribal governments. However, state, local, and Tribal governments would 
incur indirect costs in connection with the implementation of the 
proposed rule. For example, such governments would likely be the 
initial point of outreach for some companies with questions on how to 
comply with the reporting requirement. FinCEN anticipates taking 
measures to minimize the costs associated with such questions. These 
measures would include providing clear FinCEN guidance directly to the 
public on BOI reporting requirements, which may help to diminish the 
number of questions from the public. FinCEN would also provide guidance 
materials to state, local, and Tribal governments that they could use 
and distribute in response to questions, which would minimize those 
governments' need to develop their own guidance materials at their own 
cost. FinCEN received comments to the ANPRM which discussed such 
possible costs; they are summarized in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
section below. FinCEN encourages additional comments that discuss, and 
if possible estimate, the costs to state, local and Tribal governments 
under the proposed rule.
ii. Benefits
    There are several potential benefits associated with this proposed 
rule. These benefits are interrelated and likely include improved and 
more efficient investigations by law enforcement, U.S. financial 
institutions, and other authorized users, which in turn may strengthen 
national security, enhance financial system transparency and integrity, 
and align with international financial standards.
    The U.S. 2018 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment (NMLRA) 
estimates that domestic financial crime, excluding tax evasion, 
generates approximately $300 billion of proceeds for potential 
laundering.\165\ Criminal actors may use entities to send or receive 
funds, or otherwise assist in the money laundering process to 
legitimize the illegal funds. For example, an entity may act as a shell 
company--which usually has no employees or operations--and hold assets 
to obscure the identity of the true owner, or act as a front company 
which generates legitimate business proceeds to commingle with illicit 
earnings. Trade-based money laundering, for example, often leverages 
such front companies.\166\ FinCEN is not able to provide estimates of 
the amount of proceeds that flow through money laundering schemes that 
use entities given lack of data,\167\ but entities are frequently used 
in money laundering schemes and provide a layer of anonymity to the 
natural persons involved in such transactions.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ U.S. Department of the Treasury, National Money Laundering 
Risk Assessment (2018), p. 2, available at https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-
18.pdf#:~:text=The%202018%20National%20Money%20Laundering%20Risk%20As
sessment%282018%20NMLRA%29,participated%20in%20the%20development%20of
%20the%20risk%20assessment.
    \166\ Id., p. 29. Trade-based money laundering involves a cycle 
of money brokers and exporters of goods to disguise and move illicit 
funds. The sale of the goods effectively launders the money and 
provides payment to illicit actors in local currency. Merchants who 
receive payment for their goods may be unaware they are 
participating in a money laundering scheme, but some willingly 
accept such funds and are complicit. Id., p. 3.
    \167\ For example, the Government Accountability Office's 2020 
report on trade-based money laundering noted that specific estimates 
of the amount of such activity globally are unavailable, but it is 
likely one of the largest forms of money laundering. Government 
Accountability Office, Trade-based Money Laundering (April 2020), p. 
19, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-333.pdf.
    \168\ Please see the discussion of this topic in the Background 
section of the preamble, which describes in greater detail the money 
laundering concerns with legal entities and disguised beneficial 
owners, as well as the Department of the Treasury's efforts to 
address the lack of transparency in legal entity ownership 
structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Identifying the owners of these entities is a crucial step to all 
parties that investigate money laundering. The NMLRA notes that, 
according to federal law enforcement agencies, misuse of entities poses 
a significant money laundering risk, and that law enforcement efforts 
to uncover the true owners of companies can be resource-intensive, 
especially when those ownership trails lead overseas or involve 
numerous layers of ownership.\169\ However, there is currently no 
systematic way to obtain information on the beneficial owners of 
entities in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ U.S. Department of the Treasury, National Money Laundering 
Risk Assessment (2018), p. 4, available at https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2018NMLRA_12-
18.pdf#:~:text=The%202018%20National%20Money%20Laundering%20Risk%20As
sessment%282018%20NMLRA%29,participated%20in%20the%20development%20of
%20the%20risk%20assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule is expected to help address the lack of BOI 
critical for money laundering investigations. Improved visibility into 
the identities of the individuals who own or control entities may 
enhance law enforcement's ability to investigate, prosecute, and 
disrupt the financing of international terrorism, other transnational 
security threats, and other types of domestic and transnational 
financial crime, when entities are used to engage in such activities. 
Other authorized users in the national security and intelligence fields 
would likewise be expected to benefit from the use of this data. The 
BOI database may also increase investigative efficiency and thus 
decrease the cost to law enforcement of investigations that require or 
benefit from identifying the owners of entities. These anticipated 
benefits are supported by ANPRM comments from those that represent the 
law enforcement community, some of whom expressed the opinion that the 
availability of BOI would provide law enforcement at every level with 
an important tool to investigate the misuse of shell companies and 
other entities used for criminal activity. To the extent these 
investigations may become more effective, money laundering in the 
United States may become more

[[Page 69950]]

difficult. Making any method of money laundering more difficult in the 
U.S. would improve the national security of the United States by 
increasing barriers for illicit actors to covertly enter and act within 
the U.S. financial system.\170\ This may serve to deter the use of U.S. 
entities for money laundering purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ The CTA states that FinCEN may disclose BOI upon receipt 
of a request from a federal agency on behalf of a law enforcement 
agency, prosecutor, or judge of another country, including a foreign 
central authority or competent authority (or like designation), 
under prescribed conditions. 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore, 
the sharing of BOI with international partners may also result in 
more efficient investigations of money laundering on a global scale, 
and also help U.S. law enforcement understand global money 
laundering networks that affect the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, since the collection of BOI would shed light upon the 
beneficial owners of U.S. entities, which may also provide insight into 
overall ownership structures, the proposed rule may promote a more 
transparent, and consequently more secure, economy. Financial 
institutions with authorized access to such data would have key data 
points--including potentially additional beneficial owners, given the 
differences between the definition in the proposed rule and the CDD 
Rule--available for their customer due diligence processes, which may 
decrease customer due diligence and other compliance burdens.\171\ 
FinCEN also expects increased transparency in ownership structures of 
entities to increase financial system integrity by reducing the ability 
of certain actors to hide monies through shell companies and other 
entities with obscured ownership information. This may discourage 
inefficient capital allocation designed primarily for non-business 
reasons, such as paying for professional services to set up and 
potentially capitalizing intermediate legal entities designed solely to 
obscure the relationship between a legal entity and its owners. In 
addition, the IRS could obtain access to BOI for tax administration 
purposes, which may provide benefits for tax compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ It is worth noting that the CDD Rule also promotes 
transparency in ownership structures of legal entities, and thereby 
strengthens the U.S. economy and national security. However, the 
CTA's BOI reporting requirement may improve upon these benefits by 
requiring that BOI be collected earlier in the life cycle of a 
company, at the time of company formation, rather than when the 
company opens a bank account. The CTA would also apply to a broader 
range of entities, since the CDD Rule covers only those institutions 
subject to financial institution customer due diligence requirements 
(e.g., those with accounts at such institutions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the BOI reporting requirements would have the benefit of 
aligning the United States with international AML/CFT standards, which 
would bolster support for such standards and strengthen cooperation 
with our partners, including the sharing of BOI, subject to appropriate 
protocols consistent with the CTA, in transnational investigations, tax 
enforcement, and the identification of national and international 
security threats.
    The benefits of the proposed rule are difficult to quantify, but 
the prior description of these benefits point to their significance. 
FinCEN's CDD Rule also did not quantify the benefits of collecting BOI, 
but rather included a breakeven analysis that concluded the CDD Rule 
would only have to reduce annual real illicit activity by between 0.16 
percent (roughly $0.38 billion in 2016, rising to 0.47 billion in 2025) 
and 0.6 percent (roughly $1.46 billion in 2016, rising to $1.81 billion 
in 2025) to yield a positive net benefit.\172\ While the CDD Rule and 
proposed BOI rule require submission of BOI under different 
circumstances and to different parties, the breakeven analysis of the 
CDD Rule suggests that even a small percentage reduction in money 
laundering activities as a result of the proposed BOI rule could result 
in economically significant net benefits. FinCEN does not currently 
propose a breakeven analysis for the proposed BOI rule herein, as it 
continues to collect information on potential costs and benefits of the 
proposed rule through the rulemaking process. FinCEN requests comment 
on data or methods that may inform estimates of potential benefits in 
this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 81 FR 29432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Alternatives
    The proposed rule is statutorily mandated, and therefore FinCEN has 
very limited ability to implement alternatives. However, FinCEN 
considered certain significant alternatives that would be available 
under the statute.
    One alternative would be to require reporting companies to submit 
BOI to FinCEN indirectly, by submitting the information to their 
jurisdictional authority who would then transmit it to FinCEN. In this 
case, jurisdictions would need to develop IT that would ultimately 
transmit data to FinCEN.\173\ As a lower bound estimate, if FinCEN 
assumes that jurisdictions would only incur 10 percent of FinCEN's 
stated initial IT development costs of approximately $33 million, then 
each jurisdiction would incur approximately $3.3 million in development 
costs. As an upper bound estimate, if FinCEN assumes that jurisdictions 
would incur close to 100 percent of the stated costs, then each of the 
jurisdictions could incur as much as approximately $33 million for IT 
development, plus additional ongoing data maintenance costs. At either 
end of the range, this scenario would impose significant costs on state 
or local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ FinCEN further assumes under this alternative analysis 
that FinCEN would be responsible for aggregating this BOI, 
consistent with the CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN requested comment in the ANPRM on questions regarding the 
collection of BOI through partnership with state, local, and Tribal 
governments. In response to the ANPRM, several state authorities 
commented that they should not be involved in the process of collecting 
and transmitting BOI to FinCEN. Some states noted that they did not 
gather or index ownership information, and that states might need to 
change their statutes, and possibly engage in additional rulemaking to 
establish a system for collecting BOI and sharing such information with 
FinCEN. One state noted that the CTA requires FinCEN, not individual 
states, to collect, store, and protect the information collected, and 
that there is no obligation in the CTA that a state adopt new 
legislation in order to aid in the delivery of BOI. Another state that 
currently collects some ownership information (office, director, and 
member information for most business entities) stated that reporting 
this information to FinCEN would ``end up causing more problems than it 
solves'' because the owner information reported to the state, such as a 
``member'' of an LLC, may not be the same individual that would be 
reported to FinCEN as a beneficial owner under the CTA's requirements. 
Other states noted technical challenges with providing BOI to FinCEN, 
such as limitations in sharing images due to file sizes, which would 
require changes to states' filing systems. One state noted that these 
types of changes could easily cost a million dollars or more. For all 
of these reasons, FinCEN decided not to propose an alternative in which 
reporting companies would submit BOI to their jurisdictional authority. 
However, FinCEN continues to consider whether there are feasible 
opportunities to partner with state authorities on the BOI reporting 
requirement, particularly where states already collect BOI, and FinCEN 
welcomes comments on this subject.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ One jurisdiction recommended that FinCEN receive copies of 
registry databases on a fixed schedule in order to compare the 
number of FinCEN filers with the numbers from corporate registrars 
across the country. Another state raised numerous questions about 
relying on existing state policies and procedures, and noted that 
doing so would be challenging, but did not directly oppose this type 
of arrangement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69951]]

    Finally, as explained in more detail below, FinCEN considered 
alternatives while shaping the specific reporting requirements of the 
rule, including: (1) The length of the initial reporting period; and 
(2) the length of time to file an updated report. These alternatives 
and their cost differences, as well as FinCEN's rationale for not 
selecting the alternative, is discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act 
section below (see Table 8).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act \175\ (RFA) requires an agency 
either to provide an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 
with a proposed rule or certify that the proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This proposed rule would apply to a substantial number of small 
entities. FinCEN has attempted to minimize the burden on reporting 
companies to the greatest extent practicable, but the proposed rule may 
nevertheless have a significant economic impact on small entities 
required to disclose beneficial owners. Accordingly, FinCEN has 
prepared an IRFA. FinCEN welcomes comments on all aspects of the IRFA. 
A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after 
consideration of comments received during the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule
    The CTA establishes a new federal framework for the reporting, 
storage, and disclosure of BOI. In enacting the CTA, Congress has 
stated that this new framework is needed to set a clear federal 
standard for incorporation practices; protect vital U.S. national 
security interests; protect interstate and foreign commerce; better 
enable critical national security, intelligence, and law enforcement 
efforts to counter money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and 
other illicit activity; and bring the United States into compliance 
with international AML/CFT standards.\176\ Section 6403 of the CTA 
amends the BSA by adding a new section at 31 U.S.C. 5336 that requires 
the reporting of BOI at the time of formation or registration of a 
reporting company, along with protections to ensure that the reported 
BOI is maintained securely and accessed only by authorized persons for 
limited uses. The CTA requires the Secretary to promulgate implementing 
regulations that prescribe procedures and standards governing the 
reporting and use of such information, to include procedures governing 
the issuance of FinCEN identifiers for BOI reporting. The CTA requires 
FinCEN to maintain BOI in a secure, non-public database that is highly 
useful to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement 
agencies, as well as federal functional regulators. The proposed rule 
would require certain entities to report to FinCEN information about 
the reporting company, its beneficial owners (the individuals who 
ultimately own or control the reporting companies) and the company 
applicant of the reporting company, as required by the CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ CTA, Section 6402(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule
    To assess the number of small entities affected by the proposed 
rule, FinCEN separately considered whether any small businesses, small 
organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions, as defined by the 
RFA, would be impacted. FinCEN concludes that small businesses would be 
substantially impacted by the proposed rule. Each of these three 
categories is discussed below.
    In defining ``small business'', the RFA points to the definition of 
``small business concern'' from the Small Business Act.\177\ This small 
business definition is based on size standards (either average annual 
receipts or number of employees) matched to industries.\178\ Under the 
proposed rule, small businesses would be ``reporting companies'' 
required to submit BOI reports to FinCEN.\179\ There are 23 types of 
entities that are exempt from submitting BOI reports to FinCEN,\180\ 
but none of these exemptions apply directly to small businesses. In 
fact, many of the statutory exemptions, such as exemptions for large 
operating companies and highly regulated businesses, would apply to 
larger businesses. For example, the large operating companies exemption 
applies to entities that have more than 20 full-time employees in the 
United States; more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales from 
sources inside the United States; and have an operating presence at a 
physical office in the United States.\181\ Using the SBA's 2019 
definition of small business across all 1,037 industries (by 6-digit 
NAICS code), there are only 46 categories of industries whose SBA 
definition of small would be lower than this statutory exemption of 
more than 20 million employees and $5 million in gross receipts/sales. 
And these were predominantly related to agricultural categories. All 
other SBA definitions of small entity well exceeded the thresholds 
stated in the statutory exemption for large operating companies. 
Therefore, FinCEN assumes that all entities estimated to be reporting 
companies are small, for purposes of this analysis. FinCEN estimates 
that there are approximately 25 million existing reporting companies 
and 3 million new reporting companies formed each year.\182\ As 
mentioned

[[Page 69952]]

before, FinCEN assumes for purposes of estimating costs to small 
businesses that all reporting companies are small businesses. Such a 
general descriptive statement on the number of small businesses to 
which the rule would apply is specifically permitted under the RFA, 
when, as here, greater quantification is not practicable or 
reliable.\183\ FinCEN has made this assumption in part to ensure that 
its IRFA does not underestimate the economic impact on small 
businesses. FinCEN solicits comment on whether there is a more precise 
way to estimate the number of small businesses that will meet the 
definition of reporting company with exemptions considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \178\ See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System Codes (NAICS) (August 19, 2019), available at 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/SBA%20Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20Aug%2019%2C%202019_Rev.pdf.
    \179\ Domestic reporting companies are defined in the proposed 
rule as corporations, limited liability companies, or other entities 
that are created by the filing of a document with a secretary of 
state or similar office under the law of a state or Indian Tribe. 
Foreign reporting companies are defined in the proposed rule as 
corporations, limited liability companies, or other entities that 
are formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do 
business in any state or Tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a 
document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the 
law of a state or Indian Tribe. Both definitions are consistent with 
statutory definitions of these terms in the CTA. See 31 U.S.C. 
5336(a)(11)(A) and proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1).
    \180\ FinCEN has proposed including the 23 exemptions that are 
statutorily mandated. See 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B) and proposed 31 
CFR 1010.380(c)(2).
    \181\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(xxi), and proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(xxi).
    \182\ FinCEN estimated these numbers by relying upon the most 
recent available data, 2018, of the annual report of jurisdictions 
survey administered by the International Association of Commercial 
Administrators in which Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, 
Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming were asked the same series of 
questions on the number of total existing entities and total new 
entities in their jurisdictions by entity type. See International 
Association of Commercial Administrators, Annual Report of 
Jurisdictions Survey--2018 Results, (2018), available at https://www.iaca.org/annual-reports/. Please note this underlying source 
does not provide information on the number of small businesses in 
the aggregate entity counts, or on the revenue or number of 
employees of the entities in the data. FinCEN used the reported 
state populations, total existing entities per state, and new 
entities in a given year per state to calculate per capita ratios of 
total existing and new entities in a year for each state. FinCEN 
then calculated a weighted average of the per capita ratio of the 14 
states to estimate a weighted per capita average for the entire 
United States (see Table 1 below). FinCEN then multiplied this 
estimated weighted average by the current U.S. population to 
estimate the total number of existing entities and the number of new 
entities in a year. FinCEN then estimated the number of exempt 
entities by estimating each of the relevant 23 exempt entity types. 
Last, FinCEN subtracted the estimated number of exempt entities from 
its prior estimations. This results in an approximate estimate of 25 
million reporting companies currently in existence and 3 million new 
reporting companies per year. To review this analysis, including all 
sources and numbers, please see the Paperwork Reduction Act section 
below.
    \183\ The RFA provides that an agency may provide a more general 
descriptive statement of the effects of a proposed rule if 
quantification is not practicable or reliable. 5 U.S.C. 607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In defining ``small organization,'' the RFA generally defines it as 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.\184\ FinCEN anticipates that the 
proposed rule would not affect ``small organizations,'' as defined by 
the RFA because the CTA exempts any organization that is described in 
section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (determined without 
regard to section 508(a) of such Code) and exempt from tax under 
section 501(a) of such Code, and because the proposed rule incorporates 
this exemption.\185\ Therefore, any small organization, as defined by 
the RFA, would not be a reporting company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
    \185\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(xix)(I), and proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(xix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In defining ``small governmental jurisdiction[s],'' the RFA 
generally defines it as governments of cities, counties, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.\186\ FinCEN does not anticipate 
at this time that the proposed rule would directly affect any ``small 
governmental jurisdictions,'' as defined by the RFA. The CTA exempts 
entities that exercise governmental authority on behalf of the United 
States or any such Indian Tribe, state, or political subdivision from 
the definition of reporting company, and the proposed rule would 
incorporate verbatim the CTA's exemption language.\187\ Therefore, 
small governmental jurisdictions would be uniformly exempt from 
reporting pursuant to the proposed rule. FinCEN is aware that certain 
small governmental jurisdictions may be among the state and local 
authorities that incur costs as they address questions on the BOI 
reporting rule. FinCEN does not have adequate information to estimate 
these possible burdens. As noted above, FinCEN would take all possible 
measures to minimize the costs associated with questions from the 
public directed at state and local government agencies and offices. In 
addition, FinCEN specifically solicits comments that discuss, and if 
possible estimate, what those costs may be, what types of small 
governmental jurisdictions could expect to face such costs, whether 
small governmental jurisdictions may face costs that are different in 
kind from those which larger jurisdictions may face, and how FinCEN 
could mitigate the burden on small governmental jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \187\ 31 U.S.C. 5536(a)(11)(ii)(II) and proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Compliance Requirements
    FinCEN recognizes that the proposed rule would impose costs on 
small entities to comply with the BOI reporting requirements. These 
costs could include: (1) Gathering relevant BOI for both initial and 
updated BOI reports; (2) hiring or utilizing compliance, legal, or 
other resources for expert advice on filing requirements; and (3) 
training of personnel to file the report. Possible costs of the 
reporting requirement are also discussed in the ANPRM comments from 
representatives of the small business community. One comment noted that 
optimizing the implementation process of the proposed rule is the most 
important step that FinCEN can take to reduce compliance costs for 
small business owners. This commenter stated that the costs to 
businesses of reporting the name, date of birth, address, and 
government ID number of a company's owner are ``incredibly low,'' 
citing a UK Government study on beneficial ownership reporting \188\ 
and assuming that the United States will have a similar experience. 
However, the commenter stated that making the filing process modern, 
efficient, and integrated with state and Tribal incorporation practices 
would ensure a negligible compliance cost for businesses. The comment 
emphasized that the best opportunity to minimize small business 
compliance cost would be to integrate the BOI filing as seamlessly as 
possible into existing state-level incorporation processes. The comment 
also noted that technology, such as pre-verifying submitted information 
and requiring electronic filing, would minimize business costs during 
filing. A separate comment supported similar recommendations, stating 
that to reduce the cost of compliance for small businesses, FinCEN 
could collaborate with authorities in all 50 states to integrate the 
FinCEN filing process into existing corporate formation and 
registration processes; verify data as it is entered in the system; 
provide plenty of opportunities to learn about the BOI reporting 
requirement; and create a searchable hub of information on the 
requirements. An additional comment noted that using familiar processes 
with minimal burdens would protect small businesses; the same comment 
also stated that FinCEN should conduct a small business impact analyses 
of the proposed regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ FinCEN cites to the UK study within this NPRM. See United 
Kingdom Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 
Review of the Implementation of the PSC Register, (March 2019), p. 
16, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/822823/review-implementation-psc-register.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN did consider an alternative scenario in which reporting 
companies would submit BOI to their state authority in the Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563 section above. Ultimately, FinCEN decided not to 
propose this alternative. FinCEN would strive to minimize costs by 
ensuring that small businesses are aware of the reporting requirement. 
Table 9 below illustrates how a reduction in the time burden for 
reporting the required information would decrease costs for reporting 
companies.
    Another comment stated that the reporting requirements would create 
significant unintended consequences with new burdens and complexity for 
nearly 4.9 million American small businesses, resulting in an 
additional $5.7 billion in regulatory paperwork.\189\ The comment 
further stated that the reporting requirement is not necessary because 
the information is already collected and proposed that a simple 
alternative would be to allow FinCEN to review information provided to 
the IRS in tax filings. To the extent that similar information may be 
reported to the IRS, the disclosure of taxpayer information is limited 
by statute, and the IRS generally does not have the authority to 
disclose such information for the purposes specified in the CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ The comment does not provide the sources for these 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, FinCEN estimates that small businesses across 
multiple industries would be subject to these requirements. Assuming 
that all reporting companies are small businesses, the burden hours for 
filing

[[Page 69953]]

BOI reports would be 32,800,422 \190\ in the first year of the 
reporting requirement (as existing small businesses come into 
compliance with the proposed rule) and 9,468,510 \191\ in the years 
after. FinCEN estimates that the total cost of filing BOI reports is 
approximately $1.26 billion \192\ in the first year and $364 million 
\193\ in the years after. FinCEN estimates it would cost the 25 million 
domestic and foreign reporting companies that are estimated to 
currently exist approximately $45 each to prepare and submit an initial 
report for the first year that the BOI reporting requirements are in 
effect.\194\ FinCEN intends that the reporting requirement would be 
accessible to the personnel of reporting companies who would need to 
comply with these regulations and would not require specific 
professional skills or expertise to prepare the report. However, FinCEN 
is aware that some reporting companies may seek legal or other 
professional advice in complying with the BOI requirements. FinCEN 
seeks comment on whether small businesses anticipate requiring 
professional expertise to comply with the BOI requirements described 
herein and what FinCEN could do to minimize the need for such 
expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 30,186,029 hours to file initial BOI reports + 2,614,392 
hours to file updated BOI reports. Please see the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section below for the underlying analysis related to 
these burden hour estimates.
    \191\ 3,764,381 hours to file initial BOI reports + 5,704,129 
hours to file updated BOI reports. Please see the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section below for the underlying analysis related to 
these burden hour estimates.
    \192\ $1,160,332.854.17 to file initial BOI reports + 
$100,495,669.61 to file updated BOI reports. FinCEN estimated cost 
using a loaded wage rate of $38.44 per hour. Please see the 
Paperwork Reduction Act section below for the underlying analysis 
related to these cost estimates.
    \193\ $144,700,558.43 to file initial BOI reports + 
$219,263,279.14 to file updated BOI reports. FinCEN estimated cost 
using a loaded wage rate of $38.44 per hour. Please see the 
Paperwork Reduction Act section below for the underlying analysis 
related to these cost estimates.
    \194\ $1,160,332,854.17/25,873,739 reporting companies = $44.85, 
approximately $45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
    There are no Federal rules that directly and fully duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. FinCEN recognizes that the 
CTA requires the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to revise 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation maintained under 41 U.S.C. 
1303(a)(1) to require any contractor or subcontractor that is subject 
to the reporting requirements of the CTA and proposed rule to disclose 
the same information to the Federal Government as part of any bid or 
proposal for a contract that meets the threshold set in 41 U.S.C. 
134.\195\ FinCEN would collaborate with the Administrator for Federal 
Procurement Policy and other Government agencies as necessary to 
reduce, to the extent possible, any duplication of the CTA 
requirements. Additionally, Section 885 of the NDAA includes a separate 
beneficial ownership disclosure requirement in the database for federal 
agency contract and grant officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN is aware that the IRS collects taxpayer information that may 
include information related to beneficial ownership, such as 
information on entity ownership structure and identifying information 
about such owners and entities. However, disclosure of taxpayer 
information is limited by statute, and the IRS generally does not have 
authority to disclose such information for the purposes specified in 
the CTA.
    FinCEN is also aware that financial institutions subject to the CDD 
Rule are required to collect some BOI from legal entities that 
establish new accounts. However, the CDD Rule does not require these 
financial institutions to file a report of that BOI with FinCEN, and 
FinCEN has long viewed the CDD Rule and BOI reporting at entity 
formation as distinct.\196\ Furthermore, the CTA requires that the CDD 
Rule be revised, retaining the general requirement for financial 
institutions to identify and verify the beneficial owners of legal 
entity customers but rescinding the specific requirements of 31 CFR 
1010.230(b)-(j). The CTA explicitly identifies three purposes for this 
revision: to bring the rule into conformity with the AML Act as a 
whole, including the CTA; to account for the fact that financial 
institutions would have access to BOI reported to FinCEN ``in order to 
confirm the [BOI] provided directly to the financial institutions'' for 
AML/CFT and customer due diligence purposes; and to reduce unnecessary 
or duplicative burdens on financial institutions and customers. This 
revision must be accomplished within one year after the effective date 
of the BOI reporting rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ See, e.g., 81 FR 29398, 29401 (discussion of multipronged 
strategy in the implementing notice for the CDD Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Significant Alternatives That Reduce Burden on Small Entities
    Given that FinCEN assumes that all reporting companies would be 
small entities, the alternatives discussion in the Paperwork Reduction 
Act section below (see Table 8), which analyzes alternatives to the 
specific reporting requirements of the rule, describes in greater 
detail several alternatives that would reduce the burden on small 
entities.\197\ A brief overview of the alternative analysis is 
summarized in this section. The alternative scenarios considered 
include: (1) The length of the initial reporting period; and (2) the 
length of time to file an updated report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ The alternative scenario discussed in the Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 section above that relies on states to collect BOI 
is not expected to reduce burden on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first alternative, FinCEN lengthened the timeframe in which 
initial reports may be submitted by companies that are in existence 
when the eventual final rule comes into effect. Specifically, FinCEN 
lengthened the current proposal's BOI compliance requirement from one 
year to two years, which is permissible under the CTA.\198\ After 
applying several more assumptions, including but not limited to 
assuming half of the existing reporting companies would file their 
initial BOI report in Year 1 and the other half would file in Year 2, 
FinCEN estimated that the cost of the proposed rule would be 
approximately $637 million less in Year 1 and approximately $358 
million more in Year 2 under this alternative scenario of extending the 
compliance timeframe from one to two years. This would translate into a 
decreased net present value cost over a ten-year horizon by 
approximately $281 at a three percent discount rate or $283 million at 
a seven percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second alternative, FinCEN lengthened the timeframe for 
updated reports from the proposed 30 days to one year, which is again 
permissible under the CTA.\199\ After applying several assumptions, 
including but not limited to assuming updates would be ``bundled,'' 
meaning that a reporting company would submit one updated report to 
account for multiple updates, which would in turn result in an 
increased burden of filing due to increased information per report, 
FinCEN estimated that the total cost of the proposed rule would be 
approximately $238 million at a seven percent discount rate or $293 
million at a three percent discount rate less in net present value over 
a ten-year horizon under this alternative scenario of increasing the 
timeframe for updated reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, FinCEN considered an alternative scenario in the 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 section above

[[Page 69954]]

in which reporting companies would submit BOI to FinCEN indirectly, by 
submitting the information to their jurisdictional authority who would 
then transmit it to FinCEN. Some commenters to the ANPRM noted that 
this alternative would decrease the compliance burden on small 
entities. However, FinCEN ultimately decided not to propose this 
alternative for the reasons stated above. FinCEN welcomes comment on 
any significant alternatives that would minimize the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities and still accomplish the objectives of 
the CTA.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
\200\ requires that an agency prepare a statement before promulgating a 
rule that may result in expenditure by the state, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $158 
million or more in any one year.\201\ Section 202 of the UMRA also 
requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule, which FinCEN has 
completed in the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 section above and the 
Paperwork Reduction Act section below. This rule in its proposed form 
may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $158 million or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).
    \201\ The UMRA threshold is $100 million per year adjusted for 
inflation, which is currently $158 million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule is being promulgated to implement the CTA. The 
primary cost of the private sector complying with the proposed rule is 
captured in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below, which amount to 
a net present value for a 10-year time horizon at a seven percent 
discount rate of approximately $3.4 billion. The net present value at a 
three percent discount rate is approximately $3.98 billion. Both of 
these amounts exceed the threshold under UMRA. Additional discussion on 
the proposed rule's costs and benefits may be found in the Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563 section above. While state, local and Tribal 
governments do not have direct costs mandated to them by the proposed 
rule, state, local, and Tribal governments may incur indirect costs 
under the proposed rule, including if they wish to expend funds to 
provide notice and assistance to filers.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ The CTA states that as a condition of funds made available 
under the CTA, each state and Indian Tribe shall, not later than 2 
years after the effective date of the regulations, take the 
following actions: (1) Periodically notifying filers--including at 
the time of any initial formation or registration of an entity, 
assessment of an annual fee, or renewal of any license to do 
business in the United States and in connection with state or Indian 
Tribe corporate tax assessments or renewals, notification to filers 
of their requirements as reporting companies and provider--with a 
copy of the reporting company form or an internet link to that form; 
and (2) updating the websites, forms relating to incorporation, and 
physical premises of the office to notify filers of the BOI 
reporting requirements, including by providing an internet link. 31 
U.S.C. 5336(e)(2)(A). The provision of these funds depends on 
availability of appropriations. However, states and Indian Tribes 
may wish to provide information about the BOI reporting requirement 
regardless of the availability of such funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN received multiple ANPRM comments that described possible 
costs that state, local, and Tribal governments could incur,\203\ such 
as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ FinCEN also received comments from state, local, and 
Tribal governments that related to other topics; however, these 
comments are not summarized herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Collecting or reporting additional BOI data to FinCEN;
     Generating a unique identifier that would link BOI reports 
with state documents;
     Sending customers notice about the BOI reporting 
requirement by mail or email;
     Adding an internet link to office website and/or on 
publications sent to new business filers; and
     Sharing language/information provided by FinCEN to 
customers.
    As noted above, various comments stated that collecting and 
reporting additional BOI data to FinCEN would require a change to state 
law and development of a new processing system, both of which would 
generate significant costs and burden. One comment from a state 
government stated these type of changes could easily cost a million 
dollars or more for a single state government. Some other comments from 
state authorities also noted technological limitations with sharing 
existing records with FinCEN. State-level collection and reporting of 
additional BOI data was strongly opposed by multiple commenters, 
including state governments. However, it is worth noting that some 
private sector comments argued for incorporating BOI reporting with 
existing state registration processes. For example, one private sector 
comment noted that FinCEN's best opportunity to minimize small business 
compliance cost is to integrate the FinCEN filing as seamlessly as 
possible into existing state-level incorporation processes. This 
alternative is considered more fully in the Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 section above.
    Commenters from state offices stated that mailing a paper notice to 
representatives of entities registered in their jurisdiction is a 
significant cost, and that most filing offices only have a mailing 
address for the registered agent of a business entity. One secretary of 
state comment estimated the cost of annual mailings at more than 
$300,000, which would increase along with the total amount of active 
entities. Some secretary of state comments also specified that 
secretaries of state should provide notice only to domestic entities in 
their jurisdiction, not foreign business entities, and that such 
reminders should coincide with the states' report filing period. 
However, one private sector commenter proposed that state offices send 
reminders of the requirement via mail.
    Multiple secretary of state commenters supported a requirement that 
states add an internet link to their office website and/or on 
publications sent to new business filers, with language provided by 
FinCEN to ensure all states share the same information and that directs 
customers to FinCEN for questions.
    Some secretary of state comments noted that state agencies would 
not have the legal expertise, authority, or resources to respond to 
questions about the BOI reporting requirements. Therefore, they argued, 
FinCEN should circulate the required periodic notices to reporting (and 
potentially exempt) entities, and every such periodic notice must have 
clear and prominently displayed contact information for FinCEN. One 
secretary of state comment noted that providing states with FinCEN-
branded materials to help differentiate from secretary of state-branded 
communication is important and may help deflect some questions from 
states directly to FinCEN. A comment from a secretary of state stated 
that it anticipates that staff time would be devoted to responding to 
calls and emails from business entities regarding compliance with the 
rule, but additional staffing is not expected. The comment stated that 
FinCEN can minimize burdens on agencies receiving business filings in 
part by providing sufficient resources for such agencies to direct 
business entities to in response to inquiries. Another secretary of 
state noted that template language from FinCEN is helpful, but they 
wanted to retain flexibility to tailor the information. One commenter 
representing Tribal interests noted that Indian Tribes first should be 
given the opportunity to identify whether or not the Tribe is capable 
of sharing reporting obligations and/or internet links and what may be 
necessary for the Tribe to carry out the obligations of the CTA and

[[Page 69955]]

the final promulgated rules and regulations, among other items. FinCEN 
welcomes additional comments describing these items in more detail and 
ways in which FinCEN may address them in its rule.
    FinCEN appreciates the issues the commenters raised regarding the 
possibility of state, local, and Tribal governments incurring indirect 
costs due to the BOI reporting requirement, particularly in the form of 
compliance questions being directed to such authorities. State, local, 
and Tribal governments play an important role in spreading awareness to 
entities, many of which may have no knowledge of FinCEN or about the 
new BOI reporting requirements. FinCEN endeavors to make publicly 
available clear and concise guidance documents. FinCEN will work 
closely with state, local, and Tribal governments to ensure effective 
outreach strategies for implementation of the eventual final rule.\204\ 
Additionally, FinCEN has a call center (the Regulatory Support Section) 
which will receive incoming inquiries relating to the CTA and its 
implementation. Finally, FinCEN considered and ultimately decided not 
to propose an alternative that would have relied upon state, local, and 
Tribal governments in the collection and reporting of BOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Multiple ANPRM comments from state authorities spoke to 
the feasibility of adding an internet link to their websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN is not aware at this time of disproportionate budgetary 
effects of this proposed rule upon any particular regions of the nation 
or particular state, local, or Tribal governments; urban, rural or 
other types of communities; or particular segments of the private 
sector.\205\ The wide-reaching scope of the reporting company 
definition means that the proposed rule would apply to entities across 
multiple private sector segments, types of communities, and nationwide 
regions. FinCEN acknowledges that there is potential variance in the 
concentration of reporting companies by region due to variation in 
corporate formation rates and laws. FinCEN also acknowledges that the 
statutory exemptions to the reporting company definition may in 
practice result in segments of the private sector not being affected by 
the proposed rule; thereby causing those that are affected to be 
disproportionately so compared to exempt entities. FinCEN welcomes any 
estimates on how such regions, and the regions' related governments, 
could be disproportionately affected by this proposed rule. FinCEN also 
welcomes any input on estimated disproportionate budgetary effects for 
particular segments of the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Though entities that have chosen complex ownership 
structures are likely to face higher burden, FinCEN is not aware of 
a particular segment of the private sector that this would 
disproportionately affect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN does not at this time have accurate estimates that are 
reasonably feasible regarding the effect of the proposed rule on 
productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive 
jobs, and international competitiveness of United States goods and 
services.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The new reporting requirements in this proposed rule are being 
submitted to OMB for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 \206\ (PRA). Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection can be submitted by visiting www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular document by selecting ``Currently Under 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Comments are welcome and must be received by February 7, 2022. In 
accordance with the requirements of the PRA and its implementing 
regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the following details concerning the 
collections of information are presented to assist those persons 
wishing to comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the primary cost for entities associated with the 
proposed rule would result from the requirement that reporting 
companies must file a BOI report with FinCEN, and update those reports 
as appropriate. FinCEN has also estimated costs that may be incurred 
related to individuals who may choose to apply for a FinCEN identifier, 
and related to foreign pooled investment vehicles that would need to 
submit a report to FinCEN, as well as the costs that would be incurred 
to update the information contained in those applications and reports.
i. Filing BOI Reports
    There are three factors that FinCEN has considered in estimating 
the number of reporting companies that would file BOI reports under the 
rule, all of which contain uncertainty: (1) The total number of 
entities that could be reporting companies (i.e., estimating the total 
number of corporations, limited liability companies, and other 
entities); (2) how many of those entities would be exempt from the 
definition of a reporting company (i.e., removing from the estimates of 
total number of entities those that are estimated to satisfy relevant 
exemptions); and (3) how often those entities that meet the definition 
of reporting company would need to update their initial reports.\207\ 
FinCEN welcomes comments on all aspects of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ FinCEN recognizes that reporting companies may also 
dissolve annually, but FinCEN assumes that the number of entities 
created and dissolved each year is roughly the same, and therefore 
the number of overall reporting companies is not likely to vary 
greatly year-to-year. This assumption is supported by Figure 3 of 
the SBA's Office of Advocacy 2020 Small Business Profile Report (See 
U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, 2020 Small 
Business Profile, (2020) available at https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/04144224/2020-Small-Business-Economic-Profile-US.pdf), which shows very little change, on average, to the 
net entity count. And in the instances in time that observe a large 
change in growth, there is an opposite and roughly equal in 
magnitude growth change in the immediately subsequent time period. 
FinCEN does account for an annual number of initial reports from 
newly created reporting companies in its estimates but assumes that 
each new entity is balanced by a reporting company which dissolves 
in the overall count of reporting companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Total Number of Entities That Could be Reporting Companies
    The first step in this analysis is for FinCEN to estimate the 
number of domestic entities, regardless of the entity type,\208\ that 
are in existence at the effective date of the regulation and that are 
newly created each year. As noted above, FinCEN assumes that the number 
of new entities each year equals the number of dissolved entities. 
FinCEN also must estimate the number of foreign entities already 
registered to do business in one or more jurisdictions within the 
United States at the effective date of the regulation and the number 
that are newly registered each year. FinCEN also assumes that the 
number of new foreign registered businesses is balanced by the number 
of existing foreign registered businesses that terminate. FinCEN does 
not have definitive counts of these entities but has identified 
information from the following sources as relevant to its initial 
estimates; none of this

[[Page 69956]]

information can be used without caveats:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ While the proposed definition of ``domestic reporting 
company'' is any entity that is a corporation, limited liability 
corporation, or other entity that is created by the filing of a 
document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the 
law of a state or Indian Tribe, FinCEN is not limiting its estimate 
of domestic entities to specific entity types or to entities that 
are created by such a filing. This simplifies the analysis but may 
produce overall estimates of costs that exceed the actual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FATF: In its 2016 mutual evaluation of the United States, 
FATF noted that there are ``no precise statistics on the exact number 
of legal entities,'' but cited estimates that there are around 30 
million legal entities in the United States, with about two million new 
formations every year.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ FATF, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist 
Financing Measures United States Mutual Evaluation Report (2016), p. 
34 (Ch. 1), available at https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer4/MER-United-States-2016.pdf . These 
estimations were also relied upon by the Congressional Research 
Service. See Congressional Research Service, Beneficial Ownership 
Transparency in Corporate Formation, Shell Companies, Real Estate, 
and Financial Transactions (July 8, 2019), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45798.pdf. FATF's 2006 Mutual Evaluation of 
the United States estimated, based on information from the 
International Association of Commercial Administrators provided by 
Delaware state officials, that in 2004 there were 13,484,336 active 
legal entities registered in the 50 states in the U.S. FATF, Mutual 
Evaluation of the United States (2006), p. 13 (Ch. 1), available at 
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer/MER%20US%20full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CDD Rule: In the CDD Rule, FinCEN estimated 8 million new 
legal entity bank accounts are opened per year.\210\ However, this 
number could include multiple accounts for any given entity, and not 
all entities open a bank account annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ 81 FR 29398, 29436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Census data: FinCEN reviewed statistics published by the 
U.S. Census Bureau, particularly from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses 
(SUSB). However, FinCEN is not aware of a methodology that may be 
applied to ``carve out'' entities that meet the definition of reporting 
companies from the SUSB data. FinCEN has relied upon Census data in 
some instances below related to estimates of exempt entities.
     State statistics: FinCEN reviewed online publications from 
state governments that provided statistics on business entities, 
including statistics on total active companies and new company 
formations. However, the information appeared to only be available from 
a limited number of states. Furthermore, the categories of reported 
statistics are not consistent and each state may have unique company 
definitions that make it difficult to assess which entities would fall 
under the proposed rule. FinCEN also reviewed comments to the ANPRM 
that included some relevant estimates reported by state 
authorities.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ FinCEN received such comments from Colorado, Connecticut, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and 
Pennsylvania. Some of the states provided estimates of total active 
companies and the average number of new companies formed annually. 
FinCEN welcomes further comments on these statistics, and also 
requests that any reported statistics explain what entity types are 
included, whether the counts include entities foreign and domestic 
to the jurisdiction, and if possible, whether the statistics 
include: (1) Only entities that would be defined as a ``reporting 
company'' in the proposed rule; and (2) any entities that would be 
included in the 23 exemption categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     International Association of Commercial Administrators 
(IACA) 2018 annual reports survey: FinCEN reviewed the most recent 
iteration, 2018, of the annual report of jurisdictions survey 
administered by the IACA \212\ in which Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, 
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, 
Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, were asked the same series 
of questions on the number of total entities and total new entities in 
their jurisdictions by entity type and responded with statistical data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ See International Association of Commercial 
Administrators, Annual Report of Jurisdictions Survey--2018 Results, 
(2018), available at https://www.iaca.org/annual-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While these sources do not provide a complete picture of entities 
in the United States, they are useful in providing an approximate range 
for estimation and for highlighting the likely variation among states 
in numbers of reporting companies. Overall, the sources FinCEN reviewed 
suggest that tens of millions of entities may be subject to the 
proposed rule. FinCEN believes that the IACA 2018 annual reports survey 
data is the most relevant information for estimating the total number 
of existing domestic reporting companies. The survey provides 
consistency in format and response among multiple states.\213\ The 
survey specifically includes data on the number of corporations, 
professional corporations, nonprofit corporations, limited liability 
companies, and partnerships. FinCEN acknowledges that this data may not 
exactly match the definition of ``domestic reporting company'' in the 
proposed rule, and may have other limitations.\214\ In addition, FinCEN 
is not able to confirm whether trusts that may qualify as reporting 
companies are counted within the IACA data because they are not 
specified in a category. FinCEN welcomes comments that provide 
estimations on the number of trusts and other particular types of 
entities that may fall under the proposed rule.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ FinCEN notes that four of the states that provided 
estimates of entities in their jurisdiction in their ANPRM comment 
letters also responded to the 2018 IACA survey: Colorado, Indiana, 
Massachusetts, and North Carolina. FinCEN used the estimates 
reported in the IACA survey for its analysis, rather than the 
estimates in the comment letters, for purposes of consistency. 
Additionally, FinCEN understands that the IACA data is narrowed to 
companies that are in good standing or active and specific entity 
types, both of which make the overall estimates more applicable to 
the ``reporting company'' category.
    \214\ For example, FinCEN cannot identify the precise number of 
general partnerships from the IACA count to the extent a state 
reported on the number of general partnerships--since the numbers 
were not reported separately by the reporting states. FinCEN assumes 
that some states did not include general partnerships in these 
statistics because they may not be required to register with the 
secretaries of state, and therefore may not be in the underlying 
data source. In a comment to the ANPRM, the Ohio Secretary of State 
noted that general partnerships follow a different process. 
Michigan's Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs also noted 
in a comment that co-partnerships do not file with the state-level 
office, but with the relevant County Clerk. FinCEN did compare the 
estimates of partnerships in IACA's data with 2018 IRS data that 
shows 527,595 domestic general partnerships and 446,713 limited 
partnerships, totaling 974,308 partnerships. The IRS data also 
includes numbers of partners, which could provide insight into the 
number of beneficial owners reported for these entities. See IRS, 
Statistical Tables--By Entity Type, available at https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-partnership-statistics. FinCEN 
compared these numbers with an estimate of total partnerships based 
on IACA's data, using the per capita analysis described below, which 
resulted in approximately 1.7 million partnerships. FinCEN notes 
that the IRS numbers, which are over 50 percent general 
partnerships, are lower than FinCEN's estimate using IACA data. 
However, FinCEN understands that IRS data only includes partnerships 
that filed tax returns. Therefore, even with the potential inclusion 
of general partnerships, IACA's data is more inclusive and a better 
data source for purposes of the reporting company estimation.
    \215\ IRS data from 2014 shows that the total number of returns 
for complex trusts, simple trusts, grantor trusts, decedent's 
estates, qualified disability trusts, Chapter 7 bankruptcy estates, 
split-interest trusts, qualified funeral trusts, Chapter 11 
bankruptcy estates, and pooled income funds is 3,170,667. See IRS, 
SOI Tax Stats--Fiduciary Returns--Sources of Income, Deductions, and 
Tax Liability--Type of Entity, available at https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-fiduciary-returns-sources-of-income-deductions-and-tax-liability-by-type-of-entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To leverage the IACA 2018 annual reports survey data in order to 
estimate total domestic reporting companies, FinCEN conducted the 
following analysis:
    1. FinCEN first transcribed data reported by each of the states 
listed above in response to questions 1-18 of the survey.\216\ FinCEN 
did not transcribe

[[Page 69957]]

the responses to the other questions because they did not relate to the 
number of entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ The questions (Q) are the following: Q1 Jurisdiction; Q2 
Total population of your Jurisdiction; Q3 Total number of 
Corporations and Professional Corporations; Q4 Total number of 
Nonprofit Corporations; Q5 Total number of Limited Liability 
Companies; Q6 Total Number of Partnerships (GPs, LPs, LLPs, etc. . . 
.); Q7 Total number of registered Corporations and Professional 
Corporations; Q8 Total number of registered Nonprofit Corporations; 
Q9 Total number of registered Limited Liability Companies; Q10 Total 
number of registered Partnerships (GPs, LPs, LLPs, etc. . . .); Q11 
Total number of new Corporations and Professional Corporations; Q12 
Total number of new Nonprofit Corporations; Q13 Total number of new 
Limited Liability Companies; Q14 Total number of new Partnerships 
(GPs, LPs, LLPs, etc. . . .); Q15 Total number of new Foreign 
Corporations and Professional Corporations; Q16 Total number of new 
Foreign Nonprofit Corporations; Q17 Total number of new Foreign 
Limited Liability Companies; Q18 Total number of new Foreign 
Partnerships (GPs, LPs, LLPs, etc. . . .).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. FinCEN then considered which data to total in order to estimate 
the: (1) Total number of existing entities; and (2) total number of new 
entities within a year.
    a. FinCEN totaled the numbers reported for Q3 (Corporations and 
Professional Corporations), Q4 (Nonprofit Corporations), Q5 (limited 
liability companies), and Q6 (Partnerships) for each state in order to 
estimate the existing entities as of 2018. FinCEN did not total the 
responses to Q7-Q10, which are ``registered'' companies, because FinCEN 
assumes that those registered entities are foreign to the state in 
question.\217\ As noted above, the counts for Q6 may include general 
partnerships for some jurisdictions which may not be considered 
reporting companies; however, because they are grouped with limited 
partnerships and limited liability partnerships in this survey, FinCEN 
is retaining this number as part of its estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ The prior year of the IACA survey (2017) worded questions 
differently than the 2018 survey. For example, the 2017 survey 
included ``the total number of domestic and foreign for-profit 
corporations and professional corporations on file (in good standing 
or active)'' as Q6. FinCEN assumes that this question covers the 
same entities as Q3 (``total number of Corporations and Professional 
Corporations'') and Q7 (``total number of registered Corporations 
and Professional Corporations'') in the 2018 survey. Given this, 
FinCEN assumes that the number of ``registered'' entities in the 
2018 survey aligns with foreign entities. FinCEN understands foreign 
in this context to mean outside of the jurisdiction, but potentially 
still within the United States. In order to avoid double-counting 
the same entity across multiple states, FinCEN is not including 
``registered'' entities in its analysis. At least one state in the 
2018 survey, Illinois, specified that their numbers in response to 
Q3 included domestic and foreign companies. However, FinCEN is 
retaining Illinois in its analysis for consistency. Illinois' per 
capita average is lower than the weighted per capita average, which 
alleviates any concern that it would create a significant upward 
bias in the nationwide weighted average (see Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. FinCEN totaled the numbers reported for Q11-Q14--data that 
mirrors the categories from Q3-Q6--for each state in order to estimate 
the new entities created in one year (2018). One of the survey 
respondents, Wyoming, did not provide responses to these questions. 
FinCEN did not total the responses to Q15-Q18, which relate to ``new 
[f]oreign'' entity types, because FinCEN understands that ``foreign'' 
entities counted here could be entities formed in another state. 
Therefore, there could be double-counting across states if an entity is 
formed in one state and registered in others.
    3. FinCEN next created a table listing each state, the population 
reported by each state in response to Q2,\218\ the totals for Q3-Q6 
(total entities), and totals for Q11-Q14 (new entities). FinCEN then 
calculated a per capita rate of total entities and a per capita rate of 
new entities by dividing the population by these totals; see Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ Wisconsin specified that its population estimate was from 
2017.

                                 Table 1--Domestic Entities per Capita Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Per capita    Per capita new
              State                 Population    Total entities   New entities   total entities     entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado........................       5,761,252         641,174         112,165      0.11129074     0.019468859
Delaware........................         967,171       1,372,130         213,697     1.418704655     0.220950587
Hawaii..........................       1,420,000         120,779          14,626     0.085055634          0.0103
Illinois........................      12,770,000         802,880          98,303     0.062872357     0.007697964
Indiana.........................       6,700,000         406,408          51,135      0.06065791      0.00763209
Louisiana.......................       4,680,000         423,755          52,389      0.09054594     0.011194231
Massachusetts...................       6,902,000         351,363          41,029     0.050907418     0.005944509
Michigan........................       9,995,915         831,973         100,550       0.0832313     0.010059109
North Carolina..................      10,350,000         647,632          88,052      0.06257314      0.00850744
Ohio............................      11,730,719         838,850          89,495     0.071508831     0.007629096
Oregon..........................       4,191,000       1,319,082         110,694     0.314741589     0.026412312
Texas...........................      29,100,000       1,761,695         236,505     0.060539347      0.00812732
Wisconsin.......................       5,795,000         419,644          43,495      0.07241484     0.007505608
Wyoming.........................         568,125         155,010  ..............     0.272844884  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. FinCEN then calculated a weighted average (weighted by 
population) for both per capita estimates to find a weighted average 
per capita rate for the United States.
    a. The weighted average per capita rate for total companies is: 
0.090978702.
    b. The weighted average per capita rate for new companies is: 
0.011345597.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Wyoming is excluded from this calculation since it did not 
provide statistics on new companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Finally, FinCEN estimated the total companies and new companies 
per year by multiplying the per capita rates by the U.S. population as 
of 2021: \220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ FinCEN assumes that there is proportional growth between 
the population and formation of new entities over time for purposes 
of estimating the total number of existing and registered entities 
as of today. Although this assumption is arguably in tension with 
the assumption of zero net company formation in subsequent years, 
neither assumptions plays a significant role in estimation of total 
costs over the time period analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Total entities estimate: 30,247,071.10.
    b. Total new entities per year estimate: 3,771,993.58.
    While the IACA data provides a window into the total number of 
domestic entities, FinCEN turned to other sources to identify possible 
estimates for the number of foreign (non-U.S.) entities that are 
registered to do business in the United States, and therefore would be 
a reporting company for purposes of the proposed rule.\221\ FinCEN is 
proposing the following estimate based on tax filing data, although 
FinCEN acknowledges that this data may not exactly match the definition 
of ``foreign reporting company'' in the proposed rule. In 2018 there 
were approximately 22,000 partnership tax returns filed by foreign 
partnerships.\222\ Using the same scaling process as noted above, the 
estimate for

[[Page 69958]]

2021 is 22,263.39.\223\ In addition, in 2018 an estimated 21,000 
foreign corporations filed the Form 1120-F (``U.S. Income Tax Return of 
a Foreign Corporation'')--scaled for 2021 to 21,251.42.\224\ Adding 
these two estimates (22,263.39 + 21,251.42) results in an overall 
estimate of approximately 43,514.81 foreign entities operating in the 
United States that may be subject to BOI reporting requirements. To 
estimate new foreign companies annually, FinCEN multiplied the estimate 
of total foreign companies as of 2021 (43,514.81) by the ratio of 
estimated new entities to total entities based on the IACA data 
analysis above (3,771,993.58/30,247,071.10). The estimation is 
approximately 5,426.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Although some of the IACA questions referenced ``foreign'' 
entities, as noted above FinCEN understands that those numbers may 
include entities formed in another state and entities formed in 
another country. FinCEN is only interested in the latter number for 
these purposes, which cannot be derived from IACA data in the same 
way that FinCEN derived the number of entities formed in each state.
    \222\ FinCEN understands that, in the vast majority of cases, 
foreign partnerships file a U.S. partnership tax return because they 
engage in a trade or business in the United States; however, this 
may not always be the case.
    \223\ 22,000 x 1.011972411.
    \224\ 21,000 x 1.011972411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, it is reasonable, given the data reviewed and these 
considerations, to estimate that there are 30,290,586 existing 
companies that could be reporting companies. It is also reasonable to 
estimate that there are 3,777,420 new companies per year that could be 
reporting companies.
b. Entities That Are Not Exempt From the Definition of a Reporting 
Company
    As to FinCEN's second estimate, the number of entities that would 
be reporting companies would be less than 100 percent of the entities 
that could be reporting entities because some of the entities that 
comprise the total number of entities would be exempt from the 
definition of ``reporting company'' pursuant to one or more of the 
exemptions found at proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(i)-(xxiii).
    In order to estimate the number of exempt entities to subtract from 
the first estimate of entities that are estimated to be corporations, 
limited liability companies, or other entities, FinCEN considered the 
following:
    1. A reasonable estimate for the number of existing entities under 
each of the exemptions.
    2. Whether each of the entities described in the exemptions: (1) 
Meet the proposed definition of ``reporting company'' (i.e., is the 
exempt entity formed or registered by filing with the secretary of 
state or similar office); and (2) is included in the IACA annual 
reports survey estimates (i.e., does the exempt entity fall into a 
category reported by the states in the IACA annual reports survey used 
to estimate the number of corporations, limited liability companies, or 
other entities as described above).
    3. Whether there is overlap between exemption categories, and 
whether the number of entities that overlap can be estimated.
    To address the first item, the number of existing entities under 
each of the exemptions, FinCEN conducted research and outreach to 
multiple stakeholders to identify a reasonable estimate for each 
exemption. When the data was historical, FinCEN ``scaled'' the estimate 
to 2021, scaling the estimate based on overall U.S. population growth 
from the date of the estimate to June 2021. FinCEN considered whether 
the data underlying FinCEN's estimate of exempt entities in each 
exemption category aligns with the proposed definition of the exemption 
in this NPRM. The sources used for these estimates should not be viewed 
as encompassing all entities that may be captured under the definition. 
Additionally, the sources should not be understood to convey any 
interpretation of the exemptions' definitions. FinCEN identified 
sources for estimates using what it believes to be the best data 
available related to the exemption in question, and welcomes other 
sources or clarifications on these estimates that may be provided 
through the rulemaking process. Furthermore, these estimates are based 
on multiple data sources that may not always align; meaning that the 
data source for an exemption may not only or totally include the 
entities subject to the exemption that are included in the total 
companies' estimate. Each exemption estimate is considered in detail 
below.
    1. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting issuers: 
FinCEN proposes relying upon the World Bank's data of listed domestic 
companies in the United States as of 2019. Listed domestic companies, 
including foreign companies that are exclusively listed,\225\ are those 
that have shares listed on an exchange at the end of the year. 
Investment funds, unit trusts, and companies whose only business goal 
is to hold shares of other listed companies, such as holding companies 
and investment companies, regardless of their legal status, are 
excluded. A company with several classes of shares is counted once. 
Only companies admitted to listing on the exchange are included. This 
estimate is 4,266.\226\ FinCEN scaled this number to 4,294.89.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ This estimate may therefore include entities that are not 
part of the ``total entities'' previously calculated. However, 
FinCEN assesses that the number of foreign companies included is 
sufficiently small to be trivial.
    \226\ See The World Bank Data, Listed domestic companies, 
total--United States, available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.LDOM.NO?locations=US.
    \227\ This was calculated by multiplying the estimate by a 
``2019 scaling factor'' of 1.006772611. The scaling factor was 
calculated by dividing the U.S. population as of July 1, 2019 
(330,226,709) by the U.S. population as of June 27, 2021 
(332,463,206). These population estimates were found at the Census 
Bureau's population clock. See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. and World 
Population Clock, available at https://www.census.gov/popclock/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Governmental authorities: FinCEN proposes relying upon the U.S. 
Census Bureau's 2017 Census of Governments for this estimate. FinCEN 
accessed the publicly available zip file ``Table 1. Government Units by 
State: Census Years 1942 to 2017'' and the ``Data'' Excel file included 
therein. The Excel file lists the total number of Federal, state, and 
local government units in the United States as of 2017 as 90,126. \228\ 
FinCEN scaled this number to 91,741.49; \229\ FinCEN welcomes comments 
regarding whether this is a category that is less likely to scale by 
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1. Government Units by 
State: Census Years 1942 to 2017, available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.
    \229\ This was calculated by multiplying the estimate by a 
``2017 scaling factor'' of 1.017924839. The scaling factor was 
calculated by diving the U.S. population as of July 1, 2017 
(326,608,796) by the U.S. population as of June 27, 2021 
(332,463,206). These population estimates were found at the Census 
Bureau's population clock. See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. and World 
Population Clock, available at https://www.census.gov/popclock/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Banks: FinCEN accessed the number of Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC)-insured entities as of October 20, 2021, through the 
``Institution Directory'' on FDIC's Data Tools website. FinCEN searched 
for active institutions anywhere in the United States, which resulted 
in 4,916 institutions.\230\ FinCEN also considered whether to include 
uninsured entities that are required to implement written AML program 
as a result of a final rule issued on September 15, 2020,\231\ in this 
estimate; however, given that the exemption may or may not apply to 
these entities, FinCEN is not including them at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See FDIC, Details and Financials--Institution Directory, 
available at https://www7.fdic.gov/idasp/advSearchLanding.asp.
    \231\ See 85 FR 57129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Credit unions: There are 4,999 federally insured credit unions 
as of October 20, 2021.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Data available at FINDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Depository institution holding companies: According to a report 
from

[[Page 69959]]

the Federal Reserve, as of the fourth quarter of 2020 there are 3,638 
bank holding companies and 11 savings and loan holding companies (7 
insurance and 4 commercial).\233\ This totals 3,649.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Supervision and 
Regulation Report (April 2021), p. 33, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/202104-supervision-and-regulation-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Money transmitting businesses: According to the FinCEN Money 
Services Business (MSB) Registrant Search Page, there are 24,124 
registered MSBs as of October 15, 2021.\234\ Please note this count 
includes MSBs that are registered for activity including, but not 
limited to, money transmission. This count does not include MSB agents 
that would not be within the scope of the exemption since they are not 
registered with FinCEN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See FinCEN MSB Registrant search page, accessed from 
https://www.fincen.gov/msb-registrant-search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Brokers or dealers in securities: According to the SEC, the 
number of broker-dealers as of the end of the first quarter of 2021 is 
3,532.
    8. Securities exchanges and clearing agencies: The SEC provided the 
following estimates of exchanges and clearing agencies in August 2021: 
24 national securities exchanges and 14 clearing agencies, which 
includes Proposed Rule Change Filings and Advance Notice Filings, 
totaling 38.
    9. Other Exchange Act registered entities: The SEC provided the 
following estimates of other 1934 Act entities in August 2021: Two 
securities information processors, the Consolidated Quotation System 
and the Unlisted Trading Privileges (competing consolidators are not 
yet required to be registered, but the transition period and compliance 
dates begin this year); one national securities association, FINRA; 525 
municipal advisors (FinCEN did not include in this count 21 banks that 
are municipal securities dealers due to the bank exemption estimated 
above); nine nationally recognized statistical rating organizations; 
two security-based swap repositories; three OTC derivatives dealers; 
and 373 registered transfer agents as of mid-2018. Totaling these 
estimates, 2 + 1 + 525 + 9 + 2 + 3 + 373 = 915. SEC also noted that 
security-based swap dealers and execution facilities would be included 
in this exemption in the future, but registration is not yet 
required.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ SEC also provided data regarding its general exemption 
authority pursuant to Section 36 of the 1934 Act: Maybe 30 entities 
have been granted exemptions from registration over the years, and 
many were temporary, and maybe 300 entities did not have to register 
due to exemptions from defined terms granted under this authority. 
However, these are rough estimates, and given their relatively small 
value, FinCEN is not including them in the estimate of this 
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Investment companies or investment advisers: According to 
information provided by the SEC, there are 2,773 registered investment 
companies (number of trusts, not funds) and 14,381 registered 
investment advisers as of June 30, 2021. This totals 17,154.
    11. Venture capital fund advisers: According to information 
provided by the SEC, there are 1,498 exempt reporting advisers 
utilizing the exemption from registration as an adviser solely to one 
or more venture capital funds as of June 30, 2021.
    12. Insurance companies: According to the Treasury Department's 
Federal Insurance Office, there are 4,738 insurance companies, which 
include the following U.S. insurance underwriting entities by type: 
3,471 members of an insurance group; 1,103 standalone; and 164 alien 
surplus lines. These totals were aggregated using a best efforts 
scrubbing approach applied to a S&P Global regulatory filings dataset 
on July, 2, 2021 and, for that reason, should be regarded as estimates 
or broadly indicative of the sector.
    13. State licensed insurance producers: According to the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners' website, as of January 26, 2021 
there were more than 236,000 business entities licensed to provide 
insurance services in the United States.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ NAIC, Producer Licensing, (January 26, 2021), available at 
https://content.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_producer_licensing.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Commodity Exchange Act registered entities: The Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) provided the following breakdown of 
companies related to this exemption as of July 2021. For part I: 
Designated Contract Market (16); Swap Execution Facility (20); 
Designated Clearing Organization (15); and Swap Data Repository, 
Provisionally-registered (3)--totaling 54. For part II: Futures 
Commission Merchant (61); Introducing Broker in Commodities (1,055); 
Commodity Pool Operators (1,266); Commodity Trading Advisory (1,757); 
Retail Foreign Exchange Dealer (4); Swap Dealer, Provisionally-
registered (109); and Major Swap Participant (0)--totaling 4,252. These 
totals combined equal 4,306.
    15. Accounting firms: FinCEN searched the Public Company Accounting 
Oversight Board's (PCAOB) Registered Firms list, accessible on their 
website, and identified 851 firms as of October 20, 2021.\237\ FinCEN 
searched for firms in the United States, Northern Mariana Islands, and 
Puerto Rico and totaled those with the status of ``Currently 
Registered'' or ``Withdrawal Pending.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ See PCAOB, Registration, Annual and Special Reporting, 
available at https://rasr.pcaobus.org/Search/Search.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Public utilities: FinCEN relies upon the U.S. Census Bureau's 
2018 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) data for this estimate. 
FinCEN accessed the publicly available 2018 SUSB annual data tables by 
establishment industry and the ``U.S. & states, 6-digit NAICS'' Excel 
file. The Excel file lists the total firms in the United States with 
the NAICS code of 22: Utilities as 6,028.\238\ SUSB data only includes 
entities that reported employees in the reporting year. FinCEN 
understands that firms may operate in multiple NAICS code industries; 
therefore this number could include firms that partly operate as 
utilities and partly as other types of exempt entities. Additionally, 
each ``firm'' in Census data may include multiple entities. FinCEN 
scaled this estimate to 6,100.17.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. & states, 6-digit NAICS, 
(2018), available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/econ/susb/2018-susb-annual.html.
    \239\ This was calculated by multiplying the estimate by a 
``2018 scaling factor'' of 1.011972411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Financial market utilities: According to the designated 
financial market utilities listed on the Federal Reserve's website, 
there are eight such entities.\240\ While the website has not been 
updated since January 29, 2015, FinCEN understands this estimate is 
still applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Designated Financial 
Market Utilities, (January 29, 2015), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/designated_fmu_about.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Pooled investment vehicles: According to information provided 
by SEC, as of June 30, 2021 there were 114,765 pooled investment 
vehicle clients reported by registered investment advisers. Of these, 
5,671 are registered with a foreign financial regulatory authority. 
FinCEN subtracted these for a total of 109,094.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ This estimate may not account for foreign pooled 
investment vehicles advised by banks, credit unions, or broker-
dealers. FinCEN requests any available information on estimates of 
pooled investment vehicles advised by such entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Tax-exempt entities: FinCEN relies upon IACA survey data, which 
requested specific counts of nonprofits. FinCEN used the same per 
capita methodology described with respect to the IACA survey numbers 
above to identify an estimate of total nonprofits. FinCEN identified 
the total number of nonprofit corporations reported by each

[[Page 69960]]

state that responded to the 2018 IACA survey, and then calculated a per 
capita rate for each state by dividing the number of nonprofit 
corporations by state population. FinCEN then calculated a weighted 
average per capita, and multiplied this average by the U.S. population 
in 2021 to obtain an estimate of the number of nonprofits in the U.S. 
This estimate is 2,826,260.79.
    20. Entities assisting a tax-exempt entity: FinCEN could not find 
an estimate for these entities, and a comment to the ANPRM suggested 
that the public is also not aware of a possible estimate; therefore, to 
calculate this estimate, FinCEN assumes that approximately a quarter of 
the entities in the preceding exemption would have a related entity 
that falls under this exemption, totaling 706,565.20.\242\ FinCEN 
welcomes comments on this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ 2,826,260.79 X 0.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Large operating companies: This estimate is based on tax 
information. There were approximately 231,000 employers' tax filings in 
2019 that reported more than 20 employees and receipts over $5 
million.\243\ FinCEN scaled this number to 232,564.47.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ The gross receipts include all receipts from activities 
conducted directly by the entity, including foreign sales to the 
extent that the entity has a branch in a foreign country. However, 
it would not include, for example, the gross receipts earned by a 
foreign subsidiary of the entity.
    \244\ This was calculated by multiplying the estimate by a 
``2019 scaling factor'' of 1.006772611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Subsidiaries of certain exempt entities: According to a 
commercial database provider, as of 2021 there were 239,892 businesses 
in the United States that were majority-owned subsidiaries, either with 
a parent company inside or outside of the United States. While this 
estimate is not refined further to consider only wholly-owned 
subsidiaries of certain exempt entities, FinCEN is still providing this 
estimate for a point of reference.
    23. Inactive entities: FinCEN is not proposing an estimate for this 
exemption given lack of available data. FinCEN also assumes that 
inactive companies are not included in the estimates from the IACA 
annual reports survey,\245\ so there is no need to subtract this 
exemption from the prior estimate. However, there are likely to be some 
companies on corporate registries in the United States that fall under 
this exemption; such companies that were included in the 2018 IACA 
survey responses would impact FinCEN's estimates by increasing the 
total number of reporting companies. FinCEN solicits comments on an 
estimate of these companies, and whether FinCEN's assumption that 
inactive companies are not included in the numbers estimated herein is 
accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ IACA's 2017 survey specified in its questions that 
entities be in good standing or active. FinCEN assesses that this 
same expectation applies to the 2018 survey, but recognizes that 
does not mean no such companies were included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying these estimates, FinCEN further considered 
whether each of the entities described in the exemptions: (1) Meet the 
proposed definition of ``reporting company''; and (2) is included in 
the IACA annual reports survey estimates. FinCEN understands that some 
of the exempt categories may not register with the secretaries of state 
or similar offices in certain jurisdictions. For example, banks, credit 
unions, and insurance companies may only be required to register with 
the state regulator and not with the secretaries of state in certain 
jurisdictions.\246\ Additionally, governmental authorities are more 
likely to be chartered directly by a legislative body rather than 
formed by registration with a secretary of state. Because of this, 
FinCEN assesses that these entities are not included in the IACA annual 
reports survey estimates, and therefore do not need to be subtracted 
from the total companies' estimate. As previously noted, FinCEN also 
assumes that inactive companies are generally not included in the IACA 
annual reports survey estimates, and that in response to this survey, 
states provided counts of entities ``in good standing or active.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ For example, Indiana's Secretary of State's website notes 
that its forms are not for use by insurance corporations or 
financial institutions, and that the appropriate state agency 
(Department of Insurance or Department of Financial Institutions) 
should be contacted for filings instructions. See Indiana Secretary 
of State, Business Forms, available at https://www.in.gov/sos/business/division-forms/business-forms/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN also considered whether the exemption categories were likely 
to overlap, and therefore include counts of the same entities that 
would result in a duplicative subtraction. For example: A variety of 
entities, such as public utilities, SEC reporting issuers, and brokers/
dealers in securities, could be large operating companies with more 
than 20 employees and $5 million in gross receipts/sales; certain 
subsidiaries of exempt entities may themselves be exempt entities; or 
specific exemptions may overlap, such as insurance companies and state-
licensed insurance producers. Another scenario could be that the 
exemption estimates include entities that are not in the IACA annual 
reports survey (such as a bank that is a large operating company with 
more than 20 employees and $5 million in gross receipts/sales), 
resulting in an unnecessary subtraction.
    Estimating the precise number of overlap for each of these 
possibilities and other potential overlaps is difficult due to lack of 
data. Critically, however, FinCEN assumes that any overlap would have a 
relatively minor effect on the burden estimate as a whole. With that in 
mind, FinCEN has not attempted to estimate each category of 
overlap.\247\ However, FinCEN welcomes comment on any material 
inaccuracies that not estimating these overlaps more precisely may 
cause, and suggestions for mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ FinCEN considered whether it may be able to address the 
overlap between the large operating company exemption and the public 
utility exemption that was calculated using SUSB data. Because the 
SUSB data may be filtered by employee size, FinCEN could remove from 
the estimate the number of entities with greater than 20 employees. 
However, this estimate would be imprecise given that SUSB data does 
not consider the threshold of $5 million gross receipts/sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 contains a list of exemptions and the estimates to be 
subtracted from the total number of reporting companies estimated based 
on IACA data.

[[Page 69961]]



              Table 2--Exemption Estimates To Be Subtracted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Final estimate
       Exemption No.           Exemption description         \248\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................  SEC reporting issuers...           4,294.89
5..........................  Depository institution                3,649
                              holding companies.
6..........................  Money transmitting                   24,124
                              businesses.
7..........................  Brokers or dealers in                 3,532
                              securities.
8..........................  Securities exchanges and                 38
                              clearing agencies.
9..........................  Other Exchange Act                      915
                              registered entities.
10.........................  Investment companies or              17,154
                              investment advisers.
11.........................  Venture capital fund                  1,498
                              advisers.
13.........................  State-licensed insurance            236,000
                              producers.
14.........................  Commodity Exchange Act                4,306
                              registered entities.
15.........................  Accounting firms........                851
16.........................  Public utilities........           6,100.17
17.........................  Financial market                          8
                              utilities.
18.........................  Pooled investment                   109,094
                              vehicle.
19.........................  Tax-exempt entities.....       2,826,260.79
20.........................  Entities assisting a tax-        706,565.20
                              exempt entity.
21.........................  Large operating                  232,564.47
                              companies.
22.........................  Subsidiaries of certain             239,892
                              exempt entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this analysis, FinCEN estimates that the total number of 
exempt entities is approximately 4,416,847. Subtracting this number 
from the first estimate of entities that could be reporting companies, 
FinCEN estimates that there are 25,873,739 entities that would meet the 
definition of a reporting company with exemptions considered. To 
estimate new exempt companies annually, FinCEN multiplied the estimate 
of total exempt companies, 4,416,847, by the overall ratio of new 
entities to total entities from the per capita calculations based on 
IACA data (3,771,993.58/30,247,071.10). The resulting estimate of new 
exempt entities is approximately 550,807.7. Therefore, FinCEN estimates 
that there would be 3,226,613 new entities per year that meet the 
definition of reporting company with exemptions considered. FinCEN 
welcomes comment on whether the method it has used to estimate the 
number of new entities that are eligible for an exemption from the 
definition of reporting company--that is, by assuming that number would 
be proportionate to the share of existing entities that are eligible 
for an exemption--is sound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ This table includes the ``scaled for 2021'' estimate for 
those with historical data sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN assumes that each reporting company would make one initial 
BOI report; FinCEN does not separately calculate the burden of the need 
to issue a corrected report where mistaken information was initially 
reported, but that can be considered as part of the estimate of the 
cost per initial report. Given the proposed implementation period of 
one year to comply with the rule for entities that were formed or 
registered prior to the effective date of the final rule, FinCEN 
assumes that all of the entities that meet the definition of reporting 
company would submit their initial BOI reports in Year 1, totaling 
25,873,739 reports. While new reporting companies may be created during 
this year as well, FinCEN assumes that companies are created and 
dissolved at roughly the same rate; therefore, FinCEN assumes as many 
new companies would file as old companies would dissolve and not file 
within the first year. In Year 2 and beyond, FinCEN estimates that the 
number of initial BOI reports would be 3,226,613, which is the same 
estimate as the number of new entities per year that meet the 
definition of reporting company.
c. Number of BOI Updated Reports
    FinCEN considered multiple data sources in order to estimate the 
number of BOI reports that may be updated on an annual basis. These 
updates would require additional burden and cost to filers. FinCEN 
first considered whether it may be able to apply data from the District 
of Columbia (DC), which recently imposed beneficial ownership reporting 
requirements in January 2020 on owners with more than 10 percent 
ownership and certain control persons.\249\ FinCEN received information 
from the DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) during 
outreach related to the NPRM regarding the number of updates to this 
reporting. DCRA reported that since the effective date of their 
beneficial ownership requirement, there have been 24,865 new entity 
filings and 69,019 biennial reports from existing entities received. 
There were 567 amendments filed by the new entities in this timeframe, 
approximately 2 percent, and approximately 55,200 biennial corrections 
filed, about 80 percent. FinCEN understands that the biennial 
corrections could account for existing entities that are reporting 
their beneficial ownership for the first time since the effective date, 
rather than solely counting updates or corrections to previously 
reported information. Thus, given the differences in how DC defines 
``beneficial owner'' and uncertainties as to whether the data on 
biennial reports reflects updated or initial reports, FinCEN reviewed 
other sources in order to estimate BOI updated reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ The Background section in this preamble includes more 
information on DC's requirements. See DC Code sec. 29-102.01.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69962]]

    FinCEN considered likely triggers for updated reports and the 
likelihood of these events, in order to estimate the number of updates. 
FinCEN assessed that the most likely causes for updates to reporting 
companies' initial reports are: (1) Change in address of a beneficial 
owner or applicant; (2) death of a beneficial owner; or (3) a 
management decision resulting in a change in beneficial owner.\250\ In 
order to estimate the likelihood of these updates on a monthly basis, 
given that the proposed rule requires updates within 30 days, FinCEN 
approximated probabilities for these causes from other sources:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ There may be other causes for updating BOI reports, such 
as change of beneficial owner or applicant name, expiration of the 
provided identification number document, or change in the 
identifying information for the reporting company, such as address 
or name/DBA. However, FinCEN assesses that these changes would occur 
at a relatively minor rate compared to the reasons described above. 
In particular, FinCEN understands that a renewed driver's license is 
likely to have the same identification number as the previously 
submitted expired document, and therefore is less likely to require 
an updated report. FinCEN welcomes comments that address whether 
there are, and if so which, states that do not follow this 
convention. FinCEN also assumes that reports notifying FinCEN that a 
reporting company has become eligible for an exemption from the 
reporting requirement would be negligible burden and has not 
separately estimated it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Change in address: According to the Census Bureau's Geographic 
Mobility data, 29,780,000 people one year or older moved from 2019-
2020.\251\ This is approximately 8.9824695 percent of the 2020 U.S. 
population.\252\ Therefore, FinCEN assesses that 8.9824695 percent of 
beneficial owners may have a change in address within a year, resulting 
in an updated BOI report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1. General Mobility, by Race 
and Hispanic Origin and Region, and by Sex, Age, Relationship to 
Householder, Educational Attainment, Marital Status, Nativity, 
Tenure, and Poverty Status: 2019 to 2020--United States, available 
at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/geographic-mobility/cps-2020.html. The total movers, in thousands, is 29,780.
    \252\ The U.S. population on July 1, 2020 was 331,534,662 
according to the Census Bureau. See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. and 
World Population Clock, available at https://www.census.gov/popclock/. The percentage was calculated by: (29,780,000/
331,534,662) x 100 = 8.9824695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Death: FinCEN utilized data published in the Social Security 
Administration's 2019 Period Life Table to estimate this 
probability.\253\ FinCEN narrowed the range of ages to 30-90 and 
calculated the median probability of death for males (0.011447) and 
females (0.00688). FinCEN then averaged these numbers, resulting in a 
0.9164 percent probability of death within a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ See Social Security Administration, Actuarial Life Table, 
Period Life Table, 2019, available at https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Management decision: Changes to beneficial ownership due to 
management decisions could encompass items such as a sale of an 
ownership interest or a change in substantial control (the removal, 
change, or addition of a beneficial owner with substantial control). 
FinCEN is not aware of a current data source that could accurately 
estimate such updates to BOI, though FinCEN invites comment on an 
appropriate way to estimate these numbers. FinCEN is assuming that 10 
percent of beneficial owners may change within a year due to management 
decisions.
    Totaling these estimated probabilities, there is an approximately 
20 percent probability of a change for a given beneficial owner 
resulting in an updated BOI filing within a year.\254\ FinCEN divided 
this by 12 to find the monthly probability of an update: 1.6582 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ As a point of comparison, the UK found that 10 percent of 
businesses reported a change in beneficial ownership information 
following an initial report. United Kingdom Department for Business, 
Energy & Industrial Strategy, Review of the Implementation of the 
PSC Register, (March 2019), p. 16, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/822823/review-implementation-psc-register.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that each BOI report may contain multiple beneficial owners, 
each of which could contribute to a change resulting in an updated 
report, FinCEN reviewed data published by the UK in a 2019 study on 
their BOI reporting requirements.\255\ The UK requirements define 
beneficial owners (People with Significant Control, or PSC) as those 
that directly or indirectly hold more than 25 percent of shares or 
voting rights in a company, has the right to appoint or remove the 
majority of the board of directors, or otherwise exercises significant 
influence or control.\256\ The UK study reported the following 
distribution of the number of reported beneficial owners per report: 0 
(8 percent of reports); 1 (43 percent); 2 (37 percent); 3 (9 percent); 
4 (2 percent); 5 to 10 (2 percent); and don't know (1 percent).\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ The UK study used a ``mixed-method'' research approach, 
which consisted of a quantitative survey with 500 businesses and in-
depth qualitative interviews with 30 stakeholder organizations and 2 
members of staff from Companies House. United Kingdom Department for 
Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, Review of the implementation 
of the PSC Register, (March 2019), p. 4, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/822823/review-implementation-psc-register.pdf.
    \256\ Id., p. 8.
    \257\ Id., p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to use this distribution for its estimation purposes, 
FinCEN is modifying the percentage of reports with one beneficial owner 
to 50 percent. This is to account for the fact that the beneficial 
ownership requirements proposed herein would not include an option for 
zero reported beneficial owners. Increasing the estimate of the 
percentage of reports with one beneficial owner is reasonable because 
FinCEN assumes that many of the reporting companies would be small 
businesses with simple ownership structures.\258\ FinCEN is adding 7 
percent to the distribution for one beneficial owner rather than 9 
percent (the total of the 0 beneficial owners and ``don't know'' 
responses in the UK's study) in order to ensure that the distribution 
totals 1. Additionally, FinCEN averaged 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 to calculate 
7.5 beneficial owners for the distribution category labeled in the UK 
study as ``5 to 10'' beneficial owners, although this is likely a high 
estimate of the true number in the UK data given the otherwise left-
skewed nature of the distribution based on the available data. Please 
see the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ For purposes of the IRFA above, FinCEN assumes that all 
reporting companies will be small entities. However, there may be 
reporting companies that are small, but have complex ownership 
structures. Therefore, FinCEN assumes here that ``many'' reporting 
companies will be small with a simple ownership structure.

     Table 3--Estimated Distribution of Beneficial Owners per Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Estimated
        Number of beneficial  owners per report           distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................................              0.50
2.....................................................              0.37
3.....................................................              0.09
4.....................................................              0.02
7.5...................................................              0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 69963]]

    FinCEN calculated the number of updated reports using the following 
general approach. FinCEN assumed that 1/12 of the initial reports that 
must be filed by reporting companies in existence on the effective date 
of the proposed rule would be filed in each month of the one year 
implementation period. The first month of implementation is assumed to 
have zero updated reports. To estimate the number of updated reports in 
the second month of implementation, FinCEN multiplied the estimated 
distribution by (1/12) of the estimated initial reports within the 
first year, which is the estimated distribution of initial report 
filings in the first month with varying levels of beneficial owners 
reported. FinCEN then multiplied each element of the distribution by 1-
(1-0.016582)[caret]N, where N is the number of beneficial owners on the 
respective line of the distribution; this is the probability that a 
given company with N beneficial owners would experience a change in at 
least one beneficial owner's reportable information in each month.\259\ 
This assumes that changes for a beneficial owner would be independent 
from changes for other beneficial owners of the same company. The 
following table provides the estimated number of updated reports for 
the second month of implementation using the described methodology:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ Assuming that the probability of change in a given period 
for a single beneficial owner is p, then the probability of no 
change of a single beneficial owner is (1-p). The probability of a 
company with one beneficial owner having a change is therefore 1-(1-
p). The probability of a company with two beneficial owners having a 
change is 1-(1-p)[caret]2, etc.

  Table 4--Estimated Number of Beneficial Ownership Updated Reports in
                             Year 1, Month 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Number of beneficial owners        Estimated        Estimated number of
         per report               distribution         updated reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................                  0.50          \260\ 17,877
2...........................                  0.37          \261\ 26,239
3...........................                  0.09           \262\ 9,494
4...........................                  0.02            \263\2,790
7.5.........................                  0.02           \264\ 5,083
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total...................  ....................                61,483
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN replicated this analysis for each remaining month of the 
first year. The estimated initial reports monthly increase was captured 
by increasing the (1/12) ratio in the above equation. Therefore, the 
equations in the prior table remained the same per month with the 
following change to (1/12): 2/12 (Month 3); 3/12 (Month 4); 4/12 (Month 
5); 5/12 (Month 6); 6/12 (Month 7); 7/12 (Month 8); 8/12 (Month 9); 9/
12 (Month 10); 10/12 (Month 11); and 11/12 (Month 12). The total of all 
monthly estimates for Year 1 calculated in this fashion is 4,057,848 
updated reports. Estimated monthly updated reports for all subsequent 
months were calculated using the same equation, but with a 12/12 ratio 
of initial reports (all initial reports). This estimate is 
approximately 737,790.50, multiplied by 12 for an annual estimate of 
8,853,486 updated reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ 0.5 x (25,873,739 x (1/12)) x (1-(1-0.016582).
    \261\ 0.37 x (25,873,739 x (1/12)) x (1-(1-0.016582)[caret]2).
    \262\ 0.09 x (25,873,739 x (1/12)) x (1-(1-0.016582)[caret]3).
    \263\ 0.02 x (25,873,739 x (1/12)) x (1-(1-0.016582)[caret]4).
    \264\ 0.02 x (25,873,739 x (1/12)) x (1-(1-0.016582)[caret]7.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN conducted similar analysis to estimate the number of updates 
to applicant information on a monthly basis.\265\ FinCEN assessed that 
the most likely causes for updates to reporting companies' initial 
reports involving an applicant is a change in address. Given data 
referenced above, there is an 8.9824695 percent probability of a change 
in address in a year, with a monthly probability of 0.0074854. FinCEN 
assumes that a probable distribution of the number of applicants per 
report is 90 percent with one applicant and 10 percent with two 
applicants. Using this probability and distribution, FinCEN calculated 
the monthly number of updates related to an applicant by using the same 
calculation as beneficial owner updated reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ FinCEN recognizes this is a simplification, because it 
assumes that a single reporting company which was required to file 
an updated report based on updated beneficial owner information in 
the same month as an applicant's information change would have to 
file two updates in the same month. FinCEN nevertheless calculated 
the number of updated applicant reports separately for analytical 
simplicity.

 Table 5--Estimated Number of Applicant Updated Reports in Year 1, Month
                                    2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Estimated
   Number of applicants per report        Estimated         number of
                                        distribution     updated reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................              0.90      \266\ 14,526
2...................................              0.10       \267\ 3,216
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................  ................            17,742
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total of all monthly estimates for Year 1 calculated in this 
fashion is 1,170,937 updated reports. Estimated monthly updated reports 
for all subsequent months were calculated using the same equation, but 
with a 12/12 ratio of initial reports (all initial reports). This 
estimate is approximately 212,897.60 multiplied by 12 for an annual 
estimate of 2,554,771 updated reports. Combining the estimates of 
beneficial ownership and applicant updates, FinCEN estimates 5,228,785 
updated reports in Year 1 and 11,408,257 updated reports in Year 2 and 
beyond. FinCEN welcomes comments on the appropriateness of this 
analysis for calculating the total required number of updated reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ 0.9 x (25,873,739 x (1/12)) x (1-(1-0.0074854).
    \267\ 0.10 x (25,873,739 x (1/12)) x (1-(1-0.0074854)[caret]2).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69964]]

d. Estimated PRA Burden of BOI Reports
    Reporting Requirements: The proposed rule would require certain 
entities to report to FinCEN information about the reporting company, 
their beneficial owners and company applicants, in accordance with the 
CTA.\268\ Entities would also be required to update the information in 
these reports as needed. The collected information would be maintained 
by FinCEN in a database accessible to authorized users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b) and proposed 31 CFR 1010.380(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1506-XXXX..
    Frequency: As required.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ For BOI reports, there is an initial filing and subsequent 
filings are required as information changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of Affected Public: Domestic entities that are 
corporations, limited liability companies, or other entities that are 
created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any 
similar office under the law of a state or Indian Tribe or foreign 
entities that are corporations, limited liability companies, or other 
entities which are: (1) Formed under the law of a foreign country; and 
(2) registered to do business in any state or Tribal jurisdiction by 
the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar 
office under the laws of a state or Indian Tribe. The proposed 
regulation does not require corporations, limited liability companies, 
or other entities that are described in any of 23 specific exemptions 
from the general definition to file BOI reports.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: As explained in detail above, the 
number of entities that are reporting companies is difficult to 
estimate. FinCEN assumes that existing entities that meet the 
definition of reporting company and are not exempt would submit their 
initial BOI reports in Year 1. Therefore, the estimated number of 
initial BOI reports in Year 1 is 25,873,739. In Year 2 and beyond, 
FinCEN estimates that the number of initial BOI reports would be 
3,226,613, which is the same estimate as the number of new entities per 
year that meet the definition of reporting company and are not exempt. 
FinCEN estimates that 5,228,785 updated reports would be filed in Year 
1, and 11,408,257 such reports would be filed in Year 2 and beyond.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: Most of the information required to 
be reported to FinCEN is basic information that reporting companies 
would have access to as part of conducting their business. FinCEN 
estimates the average burden of the reporting BOI as 70 minutes per 
response (20 minutes to read the form and understand the requirement, 
30 minutes to identify and collect information about beneficial owners 
and applicants, 20 minutes to fill out and file the report, including 
attaching a scanned copy of an acceptable identification document for 
each beneficial owner and applicant). FinCEN estimates the average 
burden of updating such reports as 30 minutes per update (20 minutes to 
identify and collect information about beneficial owners or applicants 
and 10 minutes to fill out and file the update).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden Hours: FinCEN estimates that 
during Year 1, the filing of initial BOI reports would result in 
approximately 30,186,029 burden hours per year on reporting 
companies.\270\ In Year 2 and beyond, FinCEN estimates that the filing 
of initial BOI reports would result in 3,764,381 burden hours annually 
on new reporting companies.\271\ FinCEN estimates that filing BOI 
updated reports in Year 1 would result in approximately 2,614,392 
burden hours on reporting companies.\272\ In Year 2 and beyond, the 
estimated number of burden hours is 5,704,129.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ (25,873,739 x 70)/60.
    \271\ (3,226,613 x 70)/60. While this calculation equals 
3,764,382, FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in the 
total of 3,764,381.
    \272\ (5,228,785 x 30)/60.
    \273\ (11,408,257 x 30)/60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Reporting Cost: To estimate the average cost, 
FinCEN used the estimate of an average cost of $27.07 per hour, the 
mean hourly wage for all employees \274\ from the May 2020 National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates report \275\ and multiplied 
by a private industry benefits factor of 1.42 \276\ to estimate a fully 
loaded wage rate of $38.44 per hour. The estimated cost of filing 
initial BOI reports in Year 1 is $1,160,332,854.17 per year.\277\ The 
estimated cost of filing initial BOI reports annually in Year 2 and 
beyond is $144,700,558.43.\278\ The estimated cost of filing updated 
reports in Years 1 is $100,495,669.61 per year.\279\ The estimated cost 
of filing updated reports annually in Year 2 and beyond is 
$219,263,279.14.\280\ FinCEN estimates that it will cost each reporting 
company approximately $45 to prepare and submit an initial report for 
the first year that the BOI reporting requirements are in effect.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ FinCEN's selection of the ``all employees'' estimate is 
reflective of its goal to develop the BOI reporting requirement so 
that a range of businesses' ordinary employees, with no specialized 
knowledge or training, may file the reports. Additionally, the CDD 
Rule also used the weighted average hourly wage for all employees 
from the National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates report 
to estimate client costs in opening a new account. 81 FR 29437.
    \275\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates, (May 2020), available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
    \276\ The ratio between benefits and wages for private industry 
workers is $10.83 (hourly benefits)/$25.80 (hourly wages) = 0.42. 
The benefit factor is 1 plus the benefit/wages ratio, or 1.42. See 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 4. Employer Costs for 
Employee Compensation for private industry workers by occupational 
and industry group, (March 2021), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t04.htm.
    \277\ 30,186,029 x $38.44. While this calculation equals 
$1,160,350,954.76, FinCEN's model includes decimal points that 
result in the total of $1,160,332,854.17.
    \278\ 3,764,381 x $38.44. While this calculation equals 
$144,702,805.64, FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result 
in the total of $144,700,558.43.
    \279\ 2,614,392 x $38.44. While this calculation equals 
$101,535,108.48, FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result 
in the total of $100,495,669.61.
    \280\ 5,704,129 x $38.44. While this calculation equals 
$219,266,718.76, FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result 
in the total of $219,263,279.14.
    \281\ $1,160,332,854.17/25,873,739 = $44.85, approximately $45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Individuals Applying for a FinCEN Identifier
    Reporting Requirements: The proposed rule would require the 
collection of information from individuals in order to issue them a 
FinCEN identifier.\282\ This is a voluntary collection. Per the CTA, 
individuals are required to provide their full name, date of birth, 
current street address, a unique identifying number from an acceptable 
identification document; furthermore, consistent with the CTA, FinCEN 
is proposing to require individuals to provide a scanned image of that 
document in order to receive a FinCEN identifier.\283\ An individual is 
also required to submit updates of their identifying information as 
needed. FinCEN would store such information in its BOI database for 
access by authorized users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ FinCEN is not separately calculating a cost estimate for 
entities requesting a FinCEN identifier, because FinCEN assumes this 
would be part of the process and cost already estimated in 
submitting the BOI reports.
    \283\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(3)(A)(i) and proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1506-XXXX
    Frequency: As required.
    Description of Affected Public: In terms of estimating the number 
of individuals requesting a FinCEN identifier, FinCEN acknowledges that 
anyone with an acceptable identification document could apply for a 
FinCEN identifier under the proposed rule. However, the primary 
incentives

[[Page 69965]]

for individual beneficial owners to apply for a FinCEN identifier are 
likely data security (an individual may desire not to send personal 
information to a reporting company but rather prefer to file that data 
with FinCEN directly); administrative efficiency where an individual is 
likely to be identified as a beneficial owner of numerous reporting 
companies; and anonymity from reporting companies that are not directly 
owned, but are indirectly owned through another entity, by the 
individual. FinCEN assesses that there may be less incentive for 
individuals who only directly own reporting companies to obtain FinCEN 
identifiers because their identity is already known to the reporting 
company. Company applicants that are responsible for registering many 
reporting companies may have incentive to request a FinCEN identifier 
in order to limit the number of companies with access to their personal 
information. This reasoning assumes that there is a one-to-many 
relationship between the company applicant and reporting companies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: Given the cases described above, 
which are based on FinCEN's speculation of possible incentives for 
individuals to obtain a FinCEN identifier, FinCEN estimates the number 
of individuals that would apply for a FinCEN identifier may be 
relatively low. FinCEN is estimating that number to be approximately 1 
percent of the reporting company estimates above. FinCEN assumes that, 
similar to reporting companies' initial filings, there would be an 
initial influx of applications for a FinCEN identifier (primarily by 
those beneficial owners with complex corporate structures) that would 
then decrease to a smaller annual rate of requests. Therefore, FinCEN 
estimates that 258,737 individuals would apply for a FinCEN identifier 
during Year 1 \284\ and 32,266 individuals would apply for on a FinCEN 
identifier annually moving forward.\285\ To estimate the number of 
updated reports for individuals' FinCEN identifier information per 
year, FinCEN used the same methodology explained in the BOI report 
estimate section to calculate, and then total, monthly updates. 
However, FinCEN only applied the monthly probability of 0.0074854 
(8.9824695 percent, the annual likelihood of a change in address, 
divided by 12 to find a monthly rate), as this was the sole probability 
of those previously estimated that would result in a change to 
individual identifying information.\286\ This analysis estimated 10,652 
updates in Year 1 and 23,241 in Year 2 and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ Assuming that individuals applying for FinCEN identifiers 
would generally request the identifier around the time when the 
company files its initial BOI report, one percent of the estimated 
initial BOI reports in Year 1 (25,873,739) is 258,737.
    \285\ One percent of the estimated new reporting companies 
annually (3,226,613) is 32,266.
    \286\ FinCEN understands that other circumstances may cause an 
update to be submitted for an individual's identifying information 
linked to a FinCEN identifier, but is using this probability as a 
rough estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Time per Respondent: FinCEN anticipates that initial 
FinCEN identifier applications would require approximately 20 minutes 
(10 minutes to read the form and understand the information required 
and 10 minutes to fill out and file the request, including attaching a 
scanned copy of an acceptable identification document), given that the 
information to be submitted to FinCEN would be readily available to the 
person requesting the FinCEN identifier. FinCEN estimates that updates 
would require 10 minutes (10 minutes to fill out and file the update).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden Hours: FinCEN estimates the total 
burden hours of individuals initially applying for a FinCEN identifier 
during Year 1 to be 86,246.\287\ In years after this period, FinCEN 
estimates that individuals applying for a FinCEN identifier would 
result in 10,755 burden hours annually.\288\ FinCEN estimates that the 
burden hours of individuals updating FinCEN identifier related 
information would be 1,775 in Year 1 \289\ and 3,874 in Year 2 and 
beyond.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ (258,737 x 20)/60.
    \288\ (32,266 x 20)/60.
    \289\ (10,652 x 10)/60.
    \290\ (23,241 x 10)/60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Reporting Cost: To estimate the average cost, 
FinCEN used the May 2020 fully loaded wage rate of $38.44 per hour for 
all employees. FinCEN estimates the total cost of individuals initially 
applying for a FinCEN identifier during Year 1 to be 
$3,315,236.73.\291\ In Year 2 and beyond, FinCEN estimates that 
individuals initially applying for a FinCEN identifier would result in 
an annual cost of $413,430.17.\292\ FinCEN estimates that the cost of 
updating individual FinCEN identifier information would be $68,243.57 
in Year 1 \293\ and $148,895.06 in Year 2 and beyond.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ 86,246 x $38.44. While this calculation equals 
$3,315,296.24, FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in 
the total of $3,315,236.73.
    \292\ 10,755 x $38.44. While this calculation equals 
$413,422.20, FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in 
the total of $413,430.17.
    \293\ 1,775 x $38.44. While this calculation equals $68,231.00, 
FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in the total of 
$68,243.57.
    \294\ 3,874 x $38.44. While this calculation equals $148,916.56, 
FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in the total of 
$148,895.06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Foreign Pooled Investment Vehicle Reports
    Reporting Requirements: The proposed rule requires that any entity 
that would be a reporting company but for the pooled investment vehicle 
exemption and is formed under the laws of a foreign country shall file 
with FinCEN a written certification that provides identification 
information of an individual that exercises substantial control over 
the pooled investment vehicle. This requirement is being implemented in 
accordance with the CTA.\295\ FinCEN would maintain this information in 
its BOI database for access by authorized users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(2)(C) and proposed 31 CFR 
1010.380(b)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1506-XXXX.
    Frequency: As required.
    Description of Affected Public: Any entity that would be a 
reporting company but for the pooled investment vehicle exemption \296\ 
and is formed under the laws of a foreign country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ This applies to any pooled investment vehicle that is 
operated or advised by a person that is an exempt bank, credit 
union, broker or dealer, registered investment company or adviser, 
or venture capital fund adviser. A pooled investment vehicle is 
defined in the CTA as any investment company as defined in section 
3(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-(a)); or 
any company that would be an investment company under that section 
but for the exclusion provided from that definition by paragraph (1) 
or (7) of section 3(c) of that Act; and is identified by its legal 
name by the applicable investment adviser in its Form ADV (or 
successor form) filed with the SEC. 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(10).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69966]]

    Estimated Number of Respondents: Based on information provided by 
the SEC, FinCEN estimates that at least 8,884 entities would be 
obligated to make initial reports when the proposed rule would come 
into effect.\297\ Assuming that these entities file initial reports in 
Year 1, the estimated number of initial reports in Year 1 is 8,884. In 
years after this period, FinCEN estimates that the number of entities 
required to file reports would be approximately 1,108.\298\ To estimate 
the number of updated reports per year, FinCEN used the same 
methodology explained in the BOI report estimate section to calculate, 
and then total, monthly updates. However, FinCEN did not account for 
differing numbers of beneficial owners per report, given the 
requirement is to report one beneficial owner. This analysis estimated 
810 updates in Year 1 and 1,768 in Year 2 and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ As of June 30, 2021, registered investment advisers 
reported 5,671 pooled investment vehicle clients registered with a 
foreign financial regulatory authority and venture capital fund 
advisers reported 3,213 advised private funds registered with a 
foreign financial regulatory authority. These two counts total 
8,884. However, this estimate may not account for foreign pooled 
investment vehicles advised by banks, credit unions, or broker-
dealers. FinCEN requests any available information on estimates of 
foreign pooled investment vehicles advised by such entities.
    \298\ FinCEN calculated the estimated foreign pooled investment 
vehicle filers per year (8,884) by the ratio of estimated new 
entities to total entities based on the IACA data analysis above 
(3,771,993.58/30,247,071.10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Time per Respondent: The information required to be 
reported to FinCEN is basic information that reporting companies would 
have access to as part of conducting their business. In addition, this 
requirement is likely less costly than the prior BOI reporting 
requirement because it only requires the identification and reporting 
of one beneficial owner with substantial control (not ownership). 
Therefore, FinCEN estimates the burden of the reporting the report as 
40 minutes per response (10 minutes to read the form and understand the 
requirement, 20 minutes to identify and collect information about 
beneficial owners, 10 minutes to fill out and file the report and 
attach a scanned copy of an acceptable identification document). FinCEN 
estimates the burden of updating or correcting such reports as 20 
minutes per update (10 minutes to identify and collect information 
about beneficial owners and 10 minutes to fill out and file update).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden Hours: FinCEN estimates the total 
burden hours for Year 1 to be 5,923 hours.\299\ After this period, 
FinCEN estimates the annual burden hours to be 739 hours.\300\ FinCEN 
estimates that the burden hours of updating reports would be 270 in 
Year 1,\301\ and 589 in Year 2 and beyond.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ (8,884 x 40)/60.
    \300\ (1,108 x 40)/60.
    \301\ (810 x 20)/60.
    \302\ (1,768 x 20)/60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Reporting Cost: To estimate the average cost, 
FinCEN used the May 2020 fully loaded wage rate of $38.44 per hour for 
all employees. The estimated total cost for initial reports in Year 1 
is $227,663.75.\303\ After this period, FinCEN estimates the annual 
cost to be $28,391.05.\304\ FinCEN estimates that the cost of updating 
reports would be $10,381.80 in Year 1 \305\ and $22,651.20 in Year 2 
and beyond.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ 5,923 x $38.44. While this calculation equals $227,680.12, 
FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in the total of 
$227,663.75.
    \304\ 739 x $38.44. While this calculation equals $28,407.16, 
FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in the total of 
$28,391.05.
    \305\ 270 x $38.44. While this calculation equals $10,378.80, 
FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in the total of 
$10,381.80.
    \306\ 589 x $38.44. While this calculation equals $22,641.16, 
FinCEN's model includes decimal points that result in the total of 
$22,651.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Total Burden and Cost
    The following table totals the burden and cost estimated in the 
prior sections.

                                         Table 6--Total Burden and Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Information collection                Count of reports    Burden hours              Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Year 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial BOI reports................................        25,873,739        30,186,029        $1,160,332,854.17
Updates for BOI....................................         5,228,785         2,614,392     \307\ 100,495,669.61
Initial identifier applications....................           258,737            86,246             3,315,236.73
Updates for identifiers............................            10,652             1,775                68,243.57
Initial foreign pooled investment vehicle reports..             8,884             5,923               227,663.75
Updates for foreign pooled investment vehicles.....               810               270                10,381.80
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................................        31,381,608        32,894,635        $1,264,450,049.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Year 2 and Beyond
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial BOI reports................................         3,226,613         3,764,381          $144,700,558.43
Updates for BOI....................................        11,408,257         5,704,129    \308\ $219,263,279.14
Initial identifier applications....................            32,266            10,755               413,430.17
Updates for identifiers............................            23,241             3,874               148,895.06
Initial foreign pooled investment vehicle reports..             1,108               739                28,391.05
Updates for foreign pooled investment vehicles.....             1,768               589                22,651.20
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................................        14,693,252         9,484,467           364,577,205.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table shows a summary of total cost over ten years. 
FinCEN is selecting the time period of ten years, a relatively short 
time period given that the requirement is permanent. This is because 
FinCEN cannot predict how the burden and cost of compliance may change 
after it is widely adopted by reporting companies. Please note, there 
are no non-labor costs associated with this collection of information 
because FinCEN assumes that active businesses already have the 
necessary equipment and tools to comply with the proposed regulatory 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ FinCEN conducted analysis on what this cost would be if 
applicant updates were not included; the cost decreased by 
approximately $23 million.
    \308\ FinCEN conducted analysis on what this cost would be if 
applicant updates were not included; the cost decreased by 
approximately $49 million.

                   Table 7--Total Costs Over Ten Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                              Total cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.........................................        $1,264,450,049.62
Year 2.........................................           364,577,205.05
Year 3.........................................           364,577,205.05
Year 4.........................................           364,577,205.05

[[Page 69967]]

 
Year 5.........................................           364,577,205.05
Year 6.........................................           364,577,205.05
Year 7.........................................           364,577,205.05
Year 8.........................................           364,577,205.05
Year 9.........................................           364,577,205.05
Year 10........................................           364,577,205.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FinCEN calculated the net present value of cost for a 
10-year horizon at discount rates of seven and three percent,\309\ 
totaling approximately $3.4 billion and $3.98 billion, respectively 
(see Table 8 below for exact figures). FinCEN calculated the cost over 
a ten-year horizon to capture the immediate impact, but expects that 
from Year 2 onwards the annual aggregate costs would be the same in 
each subsequent year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ These discount rates were applied based on OMB guidance in 
Circular A-4. See Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 
(September 17, 2003), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Alternative Scenario Analyses
    FinCEN considered alternatives while shaping the specific reporting 
requirements of the rule, including: (1) The length of the initial 
reporting period; and (2) the length of time to file an updated report. 
The analyses of these alternatives rely upon the analysis used thus far 
in the PRA cost estimate. Each alternative is considered fully below.
    In the first alternative, FinCEN considered whether to lengthen the 
timeframe in which initial reports may be submitted by companies that 
are in existence when the eventual final rule comes into effect. The 
CTA states that existing companies shall submit a BOI report to FinCEN 
``in a timely manner, and not later than 2 years after the effective 
date of the regulations'' addressed by this proposed rule.\310\ FinCEN 
currently proposes that existing companies submit a BOI report one year 
after the effective date, which is ``not later than 2 years''; however, 
given that the CTA permits FinCEN to select up to a two-year period for 
initial reports of companies that already exist when the final rule 
comes into effect, FinCEN compared the cost to the public for these two 
scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN assumed that if the reporting period was two years, half of 
the existing reporting companies would file their initial BOI report in 
Year 1 and the other half would file in Year 2. The same logic was 
applied to individuals applying for FinCEN identifiers and submitting 
foreign pooled investment vehicle reports: Half of the initial 
applications or reports would be filed in Year 1, and the other half in 
Year 2. FinCEN also assumed that updated reports would increase at an 
incremental rate throughout the two-year period, and therefore 
calculated the number of updated reports by extending the methodology 
described above to a 24-month timeframe (rather than a 12-month 
timeframe). This comparison shows that the cost of the rule is 
approximately $637 million less in Year 1 with this change, and 
approximately $358 million more in Year 2, but then is the same in 
following years. This also decreased the ten-year horizon net present 
value by approximately $281 million at a three percent discount rate or 
$283 million at a seven percent discount rate. However, the benefits of 
a one-year reporting period would outweigh the increase in cost during 
Year 1 of the rule. The public would bear the cost of initial report 
filings regardless and FinCEN has sought to maximize the usefulness of 
the database to law enforcement by obtaining BOI for existing entities 
as soon as possible.
    In the second alternative, FinCEN considered whether to lengthen 
the timeframe for updated reports from 30 days to one year. The CTA 
states that updated reports shall be filed ``not later than 1 year 
after the date on which there is a change.'' \311\ FinCEN currently 
proposes that updates be submitted 30 days after the change date, which 
is ``not later than 1 year''; however, given that the CTA permits 
FinCEN to select up to a one-year timeframe, FinCEN compared the cost 
to the public of these two scenarios. FinCEN assumed that permitting 
updates to be reported within one year would result in updates being 
``bundled,'' meaning that a reporting company could submit one updated 
report to account for multiple updates, as opposed to reporting each 
update singularly as would likely be the case under the 30-day 
reporting requirement. FinCEN therefore assumed that there would be 
approximately half as many updated reports overall if the timeframe is 
lengthened to one year. FinCEN also assumed that because more 
information may be reported on a ``bundled'' report, the burden of 
filing an update would increase. FinCEN increased the estimated burden 
for an updated BOI report to be 50 minutes, rather than the 30 minutes 
estimate for 30-day updated reports.\312\ FinCEN estimated that 
increasing the timeframe for updated reports results in a net present 
value cost decrease by approximately $238 million at a seven percent 
discount rate or $293 million at a three percent discount rate. 
However, the benefits of having information updated on a monthly basis, 
which would make the database current and accurate and by extension 
highly useful, outweigh these costs. As noted in Section IV above, 
allowing reporting companies to report updates on an annual basis could 
cause a significant degradation in accuracy and usefulness of the BOI. 
FinCEN also believes that a 30-calendar-day deadline is necessary to 
limit the possible abuse of shelf companies--i.e., entities formed as 
generic corporations without assets and then effectively assigned to 
new owners. The longer updates are delayed, the longer a shelf company 
can be ``off the shelf'' without notice to law enforcement of the 
company's new beneficial owners, and without any notice to financial 
institutions that they should scrutinize transactions involving the 
company from the perspective of its new beneficial owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ See 31 U.S.C. 5336(b)(1)(D).
    \312\ There may also be a burden decrease to reporting companies 
that FinCEN does not separately account for in its estimate: If the 
timeframe for updated reports is increased to one year, reporting 
companies that choose to regularly survey their beneficial owners 
for information changes would not have to reach out on a monthly 
basis to request any updates from beneficial owners. FinCEN has not 
accounted for this burden other than in the time required to collect 
information for an updated report, but welcomes comment on its 
significance, and the extent it may vary depending based on the 
permissible update period selected. FinCEN's cost estimates for 
updated reports also does not currently account for decrease in cost 
that may be associated with increased use of FinCEN identifiers. If 
individuals request FinCEN identifiers, reporting companies would 
not be required to update the individuals' information on the BOI 
form; individuals with FinCEN identifiers would update their own 
information with FinCEN directly, consistent with the requirements 
of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table provides the detailed cost estimates for the 
proposed rule, as well as the two alternatives discussed. Please note 
that ``NPV'' refers to the net present value of cost for a ten-year 
time horizon, which is calculated at two different discount rates.

[[Page 69968]]



                                    Table 8--Cost Comparison of Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Timeframe                        Proposed rule            Alt. 1                Alt. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1........................................     $1,264,450,049.62       $626,598,761.41     $1,247,700,771.35
Year 2........................................        364,577,205.05        723,017,733.35        328,033,325.19
Years 3+......................................        364,577,205.05        364,577,205.05        328,033,325.19
NPV 7%........................................      3,401,640,386.12      3,118,593,526.06      3,163,471,093.78
NPV 3%........................................      3,983,580,464.64      3,702,171,944.94      3,691,071,816.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the three scenarios described, FinCEN also compared 
how the estimated cost changed if more or less burden per report were 
assumed. A summary table of this comparison is included below. This 
illustrates that the time burden is a significant component of the 
overall cost of the rule. This highlights the importance of training, 
outreach, and compliance assistance in the implementation of this rule 
in order to decrease the burden and cost to the public.

                                   Table 9--Cost Comparison for Burden Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Proposed burden          More time             Less time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes to file initial BOI report............                    70                   120                    45
Minutes to file BOI update....................                    30                    60                    15
Minutes to file identifier application........                    20                    45                    20
Minutes to file identifier update.............                    10                    30                    10
Minutes to file initial foreign pooled                            40                    90                    30
 investment vehicle report....................
Minutes to file update foreign pooled                             20                    45                    15
 investment vehicle report....................
Year 1........................................     $1,264,242,966.42     $2,197,972,962.43       $799,607,136.88
Years 2+......................................       $364,517,497.03       $687,963,718.01       $203,220,746.46
NPV 7%........................................     $3,401,083,288.12     $6,243,192,863.55     $1,984,707,941.90
NPV 3%........................................     $3,982,928,060.37     $7,334,498,451.60     $2,312,530,100.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FinCEN compared how the estimated cost changed if the 
benefits factor was increased from 1.42 to 2. FinCEN is conducting this 
analysis due to the Department of Health and Human Services 2016 
``Guidelines for Regulatory Impact Analysis,'' which recommends that 
employees undertaking administrative tasks while working should have an 
assumed benefits factor of 2, which accounts for overhead as well as 
benefits.\313\ This increased the fully loaded wage rate to 
approximately $54.14. A summary table of this comparison is included 
below. FinCEN welcomes comment on the appropriate overhead factor 
FinCEN should use to estimate the burden of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ See Department of Health and Human Services, Guidelines 
for Regulatory Impact Analysis, (2016), p. 33, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files//171981/HHS_RIAGuidance.pdf.

                             Table 10--Cost Comparison of Increased Benefits Factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed rule--      Comparison--benefits
                            Timeframe                                benefits factor 1.42         factor 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1...........................................................        $1,264,450,049.62     $1,780,915,562.85
Years 2+.........................................................           364,577,205.05        513,489,021.20
NPV 7%...........................................................         3,401,640,386.12      4,791,042,797.35
NPV 3%...........................................................         3,983,580,464.64      5,610,676,710.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, FinCEN acknowledges that all costs cited herein are based 
on estimates and welcomes comments illuminating additional 
considerations or offering estimates, whether they contrast or align 
with those made above. FinCEN requests that such comments provide a 
breakdown of the estimates, the reasoning behind costs and numbers 
provided, and sources when applicable. This will help FinCEN integrate 
such information into the analysis.
vi. Questions for Comment
    General Request for Comments Under the Paperwork Reduction Act: 
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and 
included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. 
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are 
invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy 
of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of 
information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of 
technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of 
operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide 
information.
    Other Requests for Comment. In addition, FinCEN generally invites 
comment on the accuracy of FinCEN's regulatory analysis. FinCEN 
specifically requests comment on the following, most of which are 
mentioned in the preceding text.

[[Page 69969]]

    1. What are likely data sources for identifying non-compliance with 
BOI reporting requirements? What potential costs may be incurred by 
third parties, particularly state, local, and Tribal authorities and 
financial institutions, through this process?
    2. Are there data or methods available for estimating potential 
benefits generated by this rule?
    3. Is there is a precise way to estimate the number of small 
businesses that would meet the definition of reporting company with 
exemptions considered?
    4. Are there additional points to add to FinCEN's discussion of 
possible costs to state, local, and Tribal governments under the 
proposed rule, including specific estimates of costs if available?
    i. In particular, are there specifics FinCEN should add to its 
discussion of costs to small governmental jurisdictions, pursuant to 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act? Particularly, what costs might these 
jurisdictions incur, what types of small governmental jurisdictions 
could expect to face such costs, whether small governmental 
jurisdictions may face costs that are different in kind from those 
which larger jurisdictions may face, and how FinCEN could mitigate the 
burden on small governmental jurisdictions.
    5. Is it feasible for state or Tribal governments that collect BOI 
to transmit that information to FinCEN by way of existing or revised 
procedures?
    i. In the alternative scenario analysis, is FinCEN's estimate of 
potential costs to states from collecting and transmitting BOI to 
FinCEN accurate?
    6. Would reporting companies prefer to file BOI via state or Tribal 
governments rather than directly with FinCEN?
    7. Are there available data sources to determine the total number 
of trusts, and to determine what portion of the total are created or 
registered with a secretary of state or similar office?
    8. Do small businesses anticipate requiring professional expertise 
to comply with the BOI requirements described herein and what could 
FinCEN do to minimize the need for such expertise or accurately 
estimate for such a cost?
    9. Are there any significant alternatives that would minimize the 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities while accomplishing the 
objectives of the CTA?
    10. Are there certain regions that would be disproportionately 
impacted by the proposed rule, due to corporation formation practices 
or laws, or another reason? Are there likely disproportionate budgetary 
effects for particular segments of the private sector in complying with 
the proposed rule?
    11. Is there a way in which FinCEN can make the overall BOI burden 
estimate, or some component of the burden estimate, more accurate? How 
could burden of complying with the proposed collection of information 
be minimized, including through the application of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology?
    12. Are there additional data sources or ways to clarify or improve 
FinCEN's estimation of the number of existing entities that qualify for 
each exemption? Specifically:
    ii. Is the governmental authorities exemption category less likely 
to scale by population?
    iii. FinCEN does not have data on the number of entities assisting 
a tax-exempt entity and instead assumes approximately a quarter of the 
entities in the preceding exemption (i.e., tax-exempt entities) would 
have a related entity that falls under this exemption. Is this a 
reasonable assumption to make to estimate the number of entities 
assisting a tax-exempt entity?
    iv. Is any commenter able to offer an estimation of inactive 
companies? In light of the lack of data on such entities, is it 
reasonable for FinCEN to assume that inactive companies are not 
included in the IACA data used to estimate the number of reporting 
entities?
    13. Is FinCEN's approach of not precisely estimating overlapping 
entity exemptions reasonable? Is there reason to believe that not 
precisely estimating may result in material inaccuracies?
    14. Is FinCEN's methodology for estimating the number of new 
entities eligible for an exemption from the definition of a reporting 
company, that is, by assuming that number would be proportionate to the 
share of existing entities that are eligible for an exemption, 
reasonable and appropriate?
    15. Is there data or a better methodology to appropriately estimate 
the quantity of updates to BOI due to changes in beneficial ownership 
as a result of management's decision (e.g., such as from a sale of an 
ownership interest or a change in substantial control)?
    16. Do some states change a driver's license number when a driver's 
license is renewed? If so, which states?
    17. Is FinCEN's methodology for calculating the total number of 
updated reports reasonable and appropriate?
    18. Is any commenter able to provide data or information for the 
estimation of the number of foreign pooled investment vehicles that are 
advised by banks, credit unions, or broker-dealers?
    19. Are FinCEN's per-report burden estimates reasonable?
    20. Does FinCEN need to account in a specific way for the burden of 
tracking potential changes in beneficial owner or company applicant 
information? If so, how?
    21. What is the appropriate factor that FinCEN should use to 
estimate the burden of the proposed rule beyond wage costs? Is a factor 
of 1.42 based on FinCEN's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data 
appropriate? Is a factor of 2 based on the Department of Health and 
Human Services' guidance more appropriate because of its inclusion of 
overhead? Would a factor of 2 be an accurate estimate of benefits and 
overhead for the proposed rule or is that overhead factor excessive?
    22. Are FinCEN's overall cost estimates reasonable and accurate, 
and if not, what other cost estimates would be?

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 1010

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Authority 
delegations (Government agencies), Banks and banking, Brokers, Business 
and industry, Commodity futures, Currency, Citizenship and 
naturalization, Electronic filing, Federal savings associations, 
Federal-States relations, Foreign persons, Holding companies, Indian--
law, Indians, Indians--tribal government, Insurance companies, 
Investment advisers, Investment companies, Investigations, Law 
enforcement, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small 
businesses, Securities, Terrorism, Time.

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1010 of chapter X 
of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 
amended as follows:

PART 1010--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1010 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 
5316-5336; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 
701 Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; sec. 6403, Pub. L. 116-283, 134 
Stat. 3388.

0
2. Add Sec.  1010.380 to read as follows:


Sec.  1010.380  Reports of beneficial ownership information.

    (a) Reports required--(1) Initial report. Each reporting company 
shall file an initial report in the form and manner specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section as follows:

[[Page 69970]]

    (i) Any domestic reporting company formed on or after [effective 
date of final rule] shall file a report within 14 calendar days of the 
date it was formed as specified by a secretary of state or similar 
office.
    (ii) Any entity that becomes a foreign reporting company on or 
after [effective date of the final rule] shall file a report within 14 
calendar days of the date it first becomes a foreign reporting company.
    (iii) Any domestic reporting company created before [effective date 
of the final rule] and any entity that became a foreign reporting 
company before [effective date of the final rule] shall file a report 
not later than [one year after effective date of the final rule].
    (iv) Any entity that no longer meets the criteria for an exemption 
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall file a report within 30 
calendar days after the date that it no longer meets the criteria for 
any such exemption.
    (2) Updated report. A reporting company shall file an updated 
report in the form and manner specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section within 30 calendar days after the date on which there is any 
change with respect to any information previously submitted to FinCEN, 
including any change with respect to who is a beneficial owner of a 
reporting company and any change with respect to information reported 
for any particular beneficial owner or applicant.
    (i) If a reporting company meets the criteria for any exemption 
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section subsequent to the filing of an 
initial report, this change will be deemed a change with respect to 
information previously submitted to FinCEN, and the entity shall file 
an updated report.
    (ii) If an individual is a beneficial owner of a reporting company 
because the individual owns at least 25 percent of the ownership 
interests of the reporting company and such individual dies, a change 
with respect to required information will be deemed to occur when the 
estate of a deceased beneficial owner is settled, either through the 
operation of the intestacy laws of a jurisdiction within the United 
States or through a testamentary deposition. The updated report shall 
remove the deceased former beneficial owner and, to the extent 
appropriate, identify any new beneficial owners.
    (3) Corrected report. A reporting company shall file a corrected 
report in the form and manner specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section within 14 calendar days after the date on which such reporting 
company becomes aware or has reason to know that any required 
information contained in any report under this section was inaccurate 
when filed and remains inaccurate. A corrected report filed under this 
paragraph (a)(3) within this 14-day period shall be deemed to satisfy 
31 U.S.C. 5336(h)(3)(C)(i)(I)(bb) if filed within 90 calendar days 
after the date on which an inaccurate report is filed.
    (b) Form and manner of reports. Each report or application 
submitted under this section shall be filed with FinCEN in the form and 
manner that FinCEN shall prescribe in the forms and instructions for 
such report or application, and each person filing such report shall 
certify that the report is accurate and complete.
    (1) Initial report. An initial report of a reporting company shall 
include the following information:
    (i) For the reporting company:
    (A) The full name of the reporting company;
    (B) Any trade name or ``doing business as'' name of the reporting 
company;
    (C) The business street address of the reporting company;
    (D) The State or Tribal jurisdiction of formation of the reporting 
company (or for a foreign reporting company, State, or Tribal 
jurisdiction where such company first registers); and
    (E) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Taxpayer Identification 
Number (TIN) (including an Employer Identification Number (EIN)) of the 
reporting company, or where a reporting company has not yet been issued 
a TIN, one of the following:
    (1) Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number 
of the reporting company; or
    (2) Legal Entity Identifier (LEI).
    (ii) For every individual who is a beneficial owner of such 
reporting company, and every individual who is a company applicant with 
respect to such reporting company:
    (A) The full legal name of the individual;
    (B) The date of birth of the individual;
    (C) The complete current address consisting of:
    (1) In the case of a company applicant who files a document 
described in paragraph (e) of this section in the course of such 
individual's business, the business street address of such business; or
    (2) In any other case, the residential street address that the 
individual uses for tax residency purposes;
    (D) A unique identifying number from one of the following 
documents:
    (1) A non-expired passport issued to the individual by the United 
States Government;
    (2) A non-expired identification document issued to the individual 
by a State, local government, or Indian tribe for the purpose of 
identifying the individual;
    (3) A non-expired driver's license issued to the individual by a 
State; or
    (4) A non-expired passport issued by a foreign government to the 
individual, if the individual does not possess any of the documents 
described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D)(1), (2), or (3) of this section; 
and
    (E) An image of the document from which the unique identifying 
number in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) of this section was obtained, which 
includes both the unique identifying number and photograph in 
sufficient quality to be legible or recognizable.
    (2) Additional voluntary information. In addition to the 
information required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a 
reporting company may include in its initial or any subsequent report 
the TIN of any beneficial owner or company applicant, provided that:
    (i) The reporting company notifies each such beneficial owner or 
company applicant; and
    (ii) Obtains consent from each such beneficial owner or company 
applicant on a form prescribed by FinCEN.
    (3) Special rules--(i) Reporting company owned by exempt entity. If 
an exempt entity under paragraph (c)(2) of this section has or will 
have a direct or indirect ownership interest in a reporting company and 
an individual is a beneficial owner of the reporting company by virtue 
of such ownership interest, the report shall include the name of the 
exempt entity rather than the information required under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section with respect to such beneficial owner.
    (ii) Minor child. If a reporting company reports the information 
required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to a 
parent or legal guardian of a minor child consistent with paragraph 
(d)(4)(i) of this section, then the report shall indicate that such 
information relates to a parent or legal guardian.
    (iii) Foreign pooled investment vehicle. If an entity would be a 
reporting company but for paragraph (c)(2)(xviii) of this section, and 
is formed under the laws of a foreign country, such entity shall be 
deemed a reporting company for purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, except the report shall include the information required 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section solely with respect to an 
individual who exercises substantial control over the entity. If more 
than one individual exercises substantial control over the

[[Page 69971]]

entity, the entity shall report information with respect to the 
individual who has the greatest authority over the strategic management 
of the entity.
    (iv) Deceased company applicant. If a reporting company was created 
or registered before [effective date of the final rule], and any 
company applicant died before [one year after effective date of the 
final rule], the report shall include that fact, as well as any 
information required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section of which 
the reporting company has actual knowledge with respect to such company 
applicant.
    (4) Contents of updated or corrected report. If any required 
information in an initial report is inaccurate or there is a change 
with respect to any such required information, an updated or corrected 
report shall include all information necessary to make the report 
accurate and complete at the time it is filed with FinCEN. If a 
reporting company meets the criteria for any exemption under paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section subsequent to the filing of an initial report, 
its updated report shall include a notification that the entity is no 
longer a reporting company.
    (5) FinCEN identifier--(i) Application for FinCEN identifier. (A) 
An individual may obtain a FinCEN identifier by submitting to FinCEN an 
application containing the information about themselves required under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (B) A reporting company may obtain a FinCEN identifier by 
submitting to FinCEN an application at or after the time that the 
entity submits an initial report required under paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section.
    (C) Each FinCEN identifier shall be specific to each such 
individual or reporting company, and each such individual or reporting 
company may obtain only one FinCEN identifier.
    (ii) Use of FinCEN identifier. (A) If an individual has obtained a 
FinCEN identifier and provided such FinCEN identifier to a reporting 
company, the reporting company may include such FinCEN identifier in 
its report in lieu of the information required under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section with respect to such individual.
    (B) If a reporting company has obtained a FinCEN identifier, the 
reporting company may include such FinCEN identifier in a report in 
lieu of the information required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
with respect to such reporting company.
    (C) If an individual is or may be a beneficial owner of a reporting 
company by an interest held by the individual in an entity that, 
directly or indirectly, holds an interest in the reporting company, and 
if such intermediary entity has obtained a FinCEN identifier and 
provided the entity's FinCEN identifier to the reporting company, then 
the reporting company may include such entity's FinCEN identifier in 
its report in lieu of the information required under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section with respect to such individual.
    (D) Any individual or entity that obtains a FinCEN identifier shall 
file an updated or corrected report to update or correct any 
information previously submitted to FinCEN in an application for a 
FinCEN identifier. Such updated or corrected report shall be filed at 
the same time and in the same manner as updated or corrected reports 
filed under paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Reporting company--(1) Definitions. For purposes of this 
section, the term ``reporting company'' means either a domestic 
reporting company or a foreign reporting company.
    (i) The term ``domestic reporting company'' means any entity that 
is:
    (A) A corporation;
    (B) Limited liability company; or
    (C) Other entity that is created by the filing of a document with a 
secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a State or 
Indian tribe.
    (ii) The term ``foreign reporting company'' means any entity that 
is:
    (A) A corporation, limited liability company, or other entity;
    (B) Formed under the law of a foreign country; and
    (C) Registered to do business in any State or tribal jurisdiction 
by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar 
office under the law of a State or Indian tribe.
    (2) Exemptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 
the term ``reporting company'' does not include:
    (i) SEC reporting issuer. Any issuer of securities that is:
    (A) An issuer of a class of securities registered under section 12 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l); or
    (B) Required to file supplementary and periodic information under 
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
78o(d)).
    (ii) Governmental authority. Any entity that:
    (A) Is established under the laws of the United States, an Indian 
tribe, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or under an 
interstate compact between two or more States; and
    (B) Exercises governmental authority on behalf of the United States 
or any such Indian tribe, State, or political subdivision.
    (iii) Bank. Any bank, as defined in:
    (A) Section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1813);
    (B) Section 2(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
80a-2(a)); or
    (C) Section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
U.S.C. 80b-2(a)).
    (iv) Credit union. Any Federal credit union or State credit union, 
as those terms are defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1752).
    (v) Depository institution holding company. Any bank holding 
company as defined in section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 
(12 U.S.C. 1841), or any savings and loan holding company as defined in 
section 10(a) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(a)).
    (vi) Money transmitting business. Any money transmitting business 
registered with FinCEN under 31 U.S.C. 5330 and 31 CFR 1022.380.
    (vii) Broker or dealer in securities. Any broker or dealer, as 
those terms are defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c), that is registered under section 15 of that Act 
(15 U.S.C. 78o).
    (viii) Securities exchange or clearing agency. Any exchange or 
clearing agency, as those terms are defined in section 3 of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c), that is registered 
under section 6 or 17A of that Act (15 U.S.C. 78f, 78q-1).
    (ix) Other Exchange Act registered entity. Any other entity not 
described in paragraph (c)(2)(i), (vii), or (viii) of this section that 
is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    (x) Investment company or investment adviser. Any entity that is:
    (A) An investment company as defined in section 3 of the Investment 
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3), or is an investment adviser as 
defined in section 202 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
U.S.C. 80b-2); and
    (B) Registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under 
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) or the 
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.).
    (xi) Venture capital fund adviser. Any investment adviser that:
    (A) Is described in section 203(l) of the Investment Advisers Act 
of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(l)); and
    (B) Has filed Item 10, Schedule A, and Schedule B of Part 1A of 
Form ADV, or

[[Page 69972]]

any successor thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    (xii) Insurance company. Any insurance company as defined in 
section 2 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2).
    (xiii) State-licensed insurance producer. Any entity that:
    (A) Is an insurance producer that is authorized by a State and 
subject to supervision by the insurance commissioner or a similar 
official or agency of a State; and
    (B) Has an operating presence at a physical office within the 
United States.
    (xiv) Commodity Exchange Act registered entity. Any entity that:
    (A) Is a registered entity as defined in section 1a of the 
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1a); or
    (B) Is:
    (1) A futures commission merchant, introducing broker, swap dealer, 
major swap participant, commodity pool operator, or commodity trading 
advisor, each as defined in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 
U.S.C. 1a), or a retail foreign exchange dealer as described in section 
2(c)(2)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(B); and
    (2) Registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under 
the Commodity Exchange Act.
    (xv) Accounting firm. Any public accounting firm registered in 
accordance with section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 
U.S.C. 7212).
    (xvi) Public utility. Any entity that is a regulated public utility 
as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(33)(A) or (D) that provides 
telecommunications services, electrical power, natural gas, or water 
and sewer services within the United States.
    (xvii) Financial market utility. Any financial market utility 
designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council under section 
804 of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 
(12 U.S.C. 5463).
    (xviii) Pooled investment vehicle. Any pooled investment vehicle 
that is operated or advised by a person described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii), (iv), (vii), (x), or (xi) of this section.
    (xix) Tax-exempt entity. Any entity that is:
    (A) An organization that is described in section 501(c) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) (determined without regard to 
section 508(a) of the Code) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of 
the Code, except that in the case of any such organization that ceases 
to be described in section 501(c) and exempt from tax under section 
501(a), such organization shall be considered to be continued to be 
described in this paragraph (c)(2)(xix)(A) for the 180-day period 
beginning on the date of the loss of such tax-exempt status;
    (B) A political organization, as defined in section 527(e)(1) of 
the Code, that is exempt from tax under section 527(a) of the Code; or
    (C) A trust described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4947(a) of 
the Code.
    (xx) Entity assisting a tax-exempt entity. Any entity that:
    (A) Operates exclusively to provide financial assistance to, or 
hold governance rights over, any entity described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(xix) of this section;
    (B) Is a United States person;
    (C) Is beneficially owned or controlled exclusively by one or more 
United States persons that are United States citizens or lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence; and
    (D) Derives at least a majority of its funding or revenue from one 
or more United States persons that are United States citizens or 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
    (xxi) Large operating company. Any entity that:
    (A) Employs more than 20 full time employees in the United States, 
with ``full time employee in the United States'' having the meaning 
provided in 26 CFR 54.4980H-1(a) and 54.4980H-3, except that the term 
``United States'' as used in 26 CFR 54.4980H-1(a) and 54.4980H-3 has 
the meaning provided in Sec.  1010.100(hhh);
    (B) Has an operating presence at a physical office within the 
United States; and
    (C) Filed a Federal income tax or information return in the United 
States for the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in 
gross receipts or sales, as reported as gross receipts or sales (net of 
returns and allowances) on the entity's IRS Form 1120, consolidated IRS 
Form 1120, IRS Form 1120-S, IRS Form 1065, or other applicable IRS 
form, excluding gross receipts or sales from sources outside the United 
States, as determined under Federal income tax principles. For an 
entity that is part of an affiliated group of corporations within the 
meaning of 26 U.S.C. 1504 that filed a consolidated return, the 
applicable amount shall be the amount reported on the consolidated 
return for such group.
    (xxii) Subsidiary of certain exempt entities. Any entity of which 
the ownership interests of such entity are controlled or wholly owned, 
directly or indirectly, by one or more entities described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), 
(xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvi), (xvii), (xix), or (xxi) of this 
section.
    (xxiii) Inactive entity. Any entity that:
    (A) Was in existence on or before January 1, 2020;
    (B) Is not engaged in active business;
    (C) Is not owned by a foreign person, whether directly or 
indirectly, wholly or partially;
    (D) Has not experienced any change in ownership in the preceding 
12-month period;
    (E) Has not sent or received any funds in an amount greater than 
$1,000, either directly or through any financial account in which the 
entity or any affiliate of the entity had an interest, in the preceding 
12-month period; and
    (F) Does not otherwise hold any kind or type of assets, whether in 
the United States or abroad, including but not limited to any ownership 
interest in any corporation, limited liability company, or other 
similar entity.
    (d) Beneficial owner. For purposes of this section, the term 
``beneficial owner,'' with respect to a reporting company, means any 
individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial 
control over such reporting company or owns or controls at least 25 
percent of the ownership interests of such reporting company.
    (1) Substantial control. Substantial control over a reporting 
company includes:
    (i) Service as a senior officer of the reporting company;
    (ii) Authority over the appointment or removal of any senior 
officer or a majority or dominant minority of the board of directors 
(or similar body);
    (iii) Direction, determination, or decision of, or substantial 
influence over, important matters affecting the reporting company, 
including but not limited to:
    (A) The nature, scope, and attributes of the business of the 
reporting company, including the sale, lease, mortgage, or other 
transfer of any principal assets of the reporting company;
    (B) The reorganization, dissolution, or merger of the reporting 
company;
    (C) Major expenditures or investments, issuances of any equity, 
incurrence of any significant debt, or approval of the operating budget 
of the reporting company;
    (D) The selection or termination of business lines or ventures, or 
geographic focus, of the reporting company;
    (E) Compensation schemes and incentive programs for senior 
officers;
    (F) The entry into or termination, or the fulfillment or non-
fulfillment of significant contracts; and

[[Page 69973]]

    (G) Amendments of any substantial governance documents of the 
reporting company, including the articles of incorporation or similar 
formation documents, bylaws, and significant policies or procedures; 
and
    (iv) Any other form of substantial control over the reporting 
company.
    (2) Direct or indirect exercise of substantial control. An 
individual may directly or indirectly exercise substantial control over 
a reporting company through a variety of means, including through board 
representation; through ownership or control of a majority or dominant 
minority of the voting shares of the reporting company; through rights 
associated with any financing arrangement or interest in a company; 
through control over one or more intermediary entities that separately 
or collectively exercise substantial control over a reporting company; 
through arrangements or financial or business relationships, whether 
formal or informal, with other individuals or entities acting as 
nominees, or through any other contract, arrangement, understanding, 
relationship, or otherwise. An individual who has the right or ability 
to exercise substantial control as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section and this paragraph (d)(2) shall be deemed to exercise such 
substantial control.
    (3) Ownership interests. (i) The term ``ownership interest'' means:
    (A) Any equity, stock, or similar instrument, certificate of 
interest or participation in any profit sharing agreement, 
preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, voting 
trust certificate or certificate of deposit for an equity security, 
interest in a joint venture, or certificate of interest in a business 
trust, without regard to whether any such instrument is transferable, 
is classified as stock or anything similar, or represents voting or 
non-voting shares;
    (B) Any capital or profit interest in a limited liability company 
or partnership, including limited and general partnership interests;
    (C) Any proprietorship interest;
    (D) Any instrument convertible, with or without consideration, into 
any instrument described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this 
section, any future on any such instrument, or any warrant or right to 
purchase, sell, or subscribe to a share or interest described in 
paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section, regardless of 
whether characterized as debt; or
    (E) Any put, call, straddle, or other option or privilege of buying 
or selling any of the items described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A), (B), 
(C), or (D) of this section without being bound to do so.
    (ii) An individual may directly or indirectly own or control an 
ownership interest of a reporting company through a variety of means, 
including but not limited to:
    (A) Joint ownership with one or more other persons of an undivided 
interest in such ownership interest;
    (B) Through control of such ownership interest owned by another 
individual;
    (C) With regard to a trust or similar arrangement that holds such 
ownership interest:
    (1) As a trustee of the trust or other individual (if any) with the 
authority to dispose of trust assets;
    (2) As a beneficiary who:
    (i) Is the sole permissible recipient of income and principal from 
the trust; or
    (ii) Has the right to demand a distribution of or withdraw 
substantially all of the assets from the trust; or
    (3) As a grantor or settlor who has the right to revoke the trust 
or otherwise withdraw the assets of the trust:
    (i) Through ownership or control of one or more intermediary 
entities, or ownership or control of the ownership interests of any 
such entities, that separately or collectively own or control ownership 
interests of the reporting company; or
    (ii) Through any other contract, arrangement, understanding, or 
relationship.
    (iii) In determining whether an individual owns or controls 25 
percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company, the 
ownership interests of the reporting company shall include all 
ownership interests of any class or type, and the percentage of such 
ownership interests that an individual owns or controls shall be 
determined by aggregating all of the individual's ownership interests 
in comparison to the undiluted ownership interests of the company.
    (4) Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of paragraph 
(d) of this section, the term ``beneficial owner'' does not include:
    (i) A minor child, as defined under the law of the State or Indian 
tribe in which a domestic reporting company is created or a foreign 
reporting company is first registered, provided the reporting company 
reports the required information of a parent or legal guardian of the 
minor child as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
    (ii) An individual acting as a nominee, intermediary, custodian, or 
agent on behalf of another individual;
    (iii) An employee of a reporting company, acting solely as an 
employee and not as a senior officer, whose substantial control over or 
economic benefits from such entity are derived solely from the 
employment status of the employee;
    (iv) An individual whose only interest in a reporting company is a 
future interest through a right of inheritance;
    (v) A creditor of a reporting company. For purposes of this 
paragraph (d)(4)(v), a creditor is an individual who would be a 
beneficial owner under the other provisions of paragraph (d) of this 
section solely through rights or interests in the company for the 
payment of a predetermined sum of money, such as a debt and the payment 
of interest on such debt. For the avoidance of doubt, any capital 
interest in the reporting company, or any right or interest in the 
value of the reporting company or its profits, are not such rights or 
interests for payment of a predetermined sum, regardless of whether 
they take the form of a debt instrument. If the individual has a right 
or ability to convert the right to payment of a predetermined sum to 
any form of ownership interest in the company, that individual is not a 
creditor of a reporting company for purposes of this section.
    (e) Company applicant. For purposes of this section, the term 
``company applicant'' means:
    (1) For a domestic reporting company, any individual who files the 
document that creates the domestic reporting company as described in 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, including any individual who 
directs or controls the filing of such document by another person; and
    (2) For a foreign reporting company, any individual who files the 
document that first registers the foreign reporting company as 
described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, including any 
individual who directs or controls the filing of such document by 
another person.
    (f) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms 
have the following meanings.
    (1) Employee. The term ``employee'' has the meaning given the term 
in 26 CFR 54.4980H-1(a)(15).
    (2) FinCEN identifier. The term ``FinCEN identifier'' means the 
unique identifying number assigned by FinCEN to an individual or 
reporting company under this section.
    (3) Foreign person. The term ``foreign person'' means a person who 
is not a United States person.
    (4) Indian tribe. The term ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given 
the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 102 of the Federally Recognized 
Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5130).

[[Page 69974]]

    (5) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The term ``lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence'' has the meaning given the term in 
section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)).
    (6) Operating presence at a physical office within the United 
States. The term ``has an operating presence at a physical office 
within the United States'' means that an entity regularly conducts its 
business at a physical location in the United States that the entity 
owns or leases, that is not the place of residence of any individual, 
and that is physically distinct from the place of business of any other 
unaffiliated entity.
    (7) Pooled investment vehicle. The term ``pooled investment 
vehicle'' means:
    (i) Any investment company, as defined in section 3(a) of the 
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)); or
    (ii) Any company that:
    (A) Would be an investment company under that section but for the 
exclusion provided from that definition by paragraph (1) or (7) of 
section 3(c) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)); and
    (B) Is identified by its legal name by the applicable investment 
adviser in its Form ADV (or successor form) filed with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission.
    (8) Senior officer. The term ``senior officer'' means any 
individual holding the position or exercising the authority of a 
president, secretary, treasurer, chief financial officer, general 
counsel, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, or any other 
officer, regardless of official title, who performs a similar function.
    (9) State. The term ``State'' means any state of the United States, 
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the 
United States Virgin Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or 
possession of the United States.
    (10) United States person. The term ``United States person'' has 
the meaning given the term in section 7701(a)(30) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986.
    (g) Reporting violations. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person 
to willfully provide, or attempt to provide, false or fraudulent 
beneficial ownership information, including a false or fraudulent 
identifying photograph or document, to FinCEN in accordance with this 
section, or to willfully fail to report complete or updated beneficial 
ownership information to FinCEN in accordance with this section.
    (2) For purposes of this paragraph (g), the term ``person'' 
includes any individual, reporting company, or other entity.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph (g), the term ``beneficial 
ownership information'' includes any information provided to FinCEN 
under this section.
    (4) A person provides or attempts to provide beneficial ownership 
information to FinCEN if such person does so directly or indirectly, 
including by providing such information to another person for purposes 
of a report or application under this section.
    (5) A person fails to report complete or updated beneficial 
ownership information to FinCEN if such person directs or controls 
another person with respect to any such failure to report, or is in 
substantial control of a reporting company when it fails to report 
complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.

Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2021-26548 Filed 12-7-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P